[Senate Hearing 113-492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-492
WILDFIRE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS AND FOREST SERVICE 2015 FISCAL
YEAR BUDGET
__________
JULY 15, 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-554 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 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
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Elizabeth Leoty Craddock, 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
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Idaho........................ 9
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California............. 5
Flake, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From Arizona...................... 6
Gibbs, Dan, Commissioner, Summit County, Breckenridge, CO........ 17
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana.............. 1
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Arizona..................... 7
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Pimlott, Ken, Director, California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Sacramento, CA..................... 12
Tenney, David Porter, Navajo County Board of Supervisors, Navajo
County, AZ..................................................... 13
Thorsen, Kim, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Safety,
Resource Protection and Emergency Services, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 32
Tidwell, Thomas, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 20
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 10
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 53
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 71
WILDFIRE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L.
Landrieu, chair, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA
The Chair. Good morning, everyone.
Let me welcome you all to our Energy and Natural Resource
hearing on wildlife, fire preparedness and the Forest Service
budget request.
Let me welcome Senator Feinstein with us this morning.
Senator McCain and Senator Crapo will be joining us very
shortly.
I want to thank all the senators for their leadership on
this important issue that is so important to so many members of
this committee and our Nation.
I also want to thank our witnesses who will follow this
distinguished panel for their knowledge and insight.
Today we will explore the Forest Service and the Department
of Interior's preparedness for the 2014 wildfire season and to
consider the President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal for
the Forest Service. Many of our colleagues have sent letters
calling for action. Today's hearing is a good opportunity to
examine issues related to fire suppression and attempt to glean
a deeper understanding of the extent of the problem and
possible solutions.
Fighting fires, wildfires, and funding fire suppression
efforts have been an important issue in American politics for
over 100 years.
For just a brief historical context it was interesting to
find that in 1886 Yellowstone's Civilian Superintendent
abandoned their post over dispute in pay while fighting 3 large
wildfires raged and threatened the Park. The county turned to
the fighting men of the U.S. First Calvary under the command of
Captain Moses Harris to meet the challenge. Although his men
lacked the necessary training to fight wildfires Captain Harris
led a successful effort to extinguish the fires and establish
the first common sense anti-wildfire rule in our Nation's
parks. In many ways his unit became America's first
professional wildfire fighters.
Today the Forest Service and the Department of Interior are
responsible for funding and executing our fire prevention
effort. The wildfire season, particularly in the West is
becoming longer, the fires more intense. In 2013, for example,
as I'm sure Senator Feinstein will point out, the Rim Fire in
California's Sierra Nevada Mountains, the third largest in the
State's history, burned 257,000 acres. For people in Louisiana
that is almost the same as the entire city of New Orleans.
Most tragically the 2013 Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona which
many of our members know firsthand about, claimed the lives,
sadly and tragically, of 19 city of Prescott firefighters,
members of the elite Granite Mountain Hotshots.
In Louisiana and other parts of the country we understand
the devastating impacts of natural disasters, particularly in
Louisiana, better than most, unfortunately. We also understand
that these catastrophic events are happening more frequently.
They're becoming more intense. That our costs to clean up and
recover goes up every year.
Our wildfire suppression and prevention strategy must adapt
to this new reality.
We also must understand the smart prevention and a well
resourced and timely response can make all the difference. The
exponential growth in the cost of fighting larger and more
intense fires has put a real strain on the budget of the Forest
Service, in particular. In 1991 the Forest Service spent 13
percent of its overall budget on wildfire management.
But today that number is over 40 percent.
In 1985 the average annual fire suppression cost the Forest
Service and the Department of Interior roughly $630 million in
2013 dollars. But last year that number more than doubled to
1.7 billion.
The Forest Service has also exceeded the amount of money
appropriated for fire suppression in 8 of the last 10 years
requiring it to transfer funds from other projects often
referred to fire borrowing to cover emergency costs. Just last
week we learned from the Administration that the Forest Service
will need an additional $615 million to help fight fires this
year with an early 50 percent of its initial fire suppression
budget.
Fire borrowing places a tremendous burden on a number of
important service, Forest Service, priorities. The practice
does not stop at the middle divide. Eastern and Southern States
feel the impact of the shuffling of funding. In my State, for
example, in Louisiana, over $130,000 in projects for wildlife
management on almost 2,000 acres of the exquisite Kisatchie
National Forest were canceled in 2013 because those resources
were diverted to fight fire.
In 2013 a 1,200-acre timber sale on the Kisatchie National
Forest to improve wildlife habitat by thinning overstocked pine
trees was delayed because resources were diverted to fight
fires, costing jobs in our State. This happens in many other
States when fire borrowing occurs. So we need a solution. We
need a long term, cost effective solution to adequately fund
fire suppression to avoid having to make painful cuts in
essential programs elsewhere.
Senators Wyden and Crapo, along with 13 of our colleagues
including Senator Risch, Udall, Heinrich, Feinstein and Baldwin
have introduced the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that would
categorize mega fires as natural disasters and fund their
suppression under the disaster cap. It takes a whole Nation, in
my opinion, including many agencies with proper resources and
skills to effectively respond to and recover from natural
disasters. This bill would categorize mega fires the same way
we do hurricanes, catastrophic hurricanes and floods.
A natural disaster is not the time to play politics with
recovery money. People want us to send aid, not delay, while we
look for offsets.
Currently 1 percent of fires account for nearly 30 percent
of the total suppression budget. Funding these efforts under
the disaster cap would lessen the budgetary pressure on the
Forest Service and free its budget to address a full range of
important priorities. Because this legislation would calculate
the cost related to fire suppression in the 10-year rolling
average that sets the disaster cap adjustment each year, it
ensures that fire suppression costs do not impede funds
available for FEMA and the Disaster Relief Fund.
This legislation enjoys the support of a broad coalition of
senators on both sides of the aisle, the Administration and
over 200 organizations such as the NRA, the Louisiana Forestry
Association and the Sierra Club. This is a great example of
bicameral, bipartisan legislation. I applaud Senators Wyden and
Crapo for their efforts in this regard.
Let me just give just a brief closing here. Turn to my
Ranking Member and then we will recognize the distinguished
senators that are with us.
We should also look at how fire prevention programs can
reduce the impact of dangerous wildfires across the country. As
I've mentioned Kisatchie, I want to mention it just one more
time. I was with the head of the Forest Service in Kisatchie
that crosses 7 parishes in Louisiana.
On that tour which was extremely enlightening I learned
that the Forest Service when it purposefully burns lands it can
significantly reduce the wildfires that rage out of control and
keep good timber for cutting and keep people protected. I'm
looking forward to hearing more about that today. I was
particularly happy to have that personal tour just a few weeks
ago.
So let me turn to my Ranking Member, thank her for her
cooperation and her advice on all these subjects. Then we will
hear from the Senators.
Senator Murkowski, thank you for joining us this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I appreciate
what we have in front of us today. Two very important
interconnected topics that of wildfire preparedness as well as
the budget request for the Forest Service for FY 2015.
As you have noted, wild land fire is a significant part of
what the Forest Service and the Department of Interior focuses
on these days and the budget of the Forest Service, in
particular, reflects that. You've mentioned the fact that about
43 percent of the total budget of the Forest Service is
consumed by fire fighting, up from 13 percent just 10 years
ago. It would certainly appear that the situation is getting
worse, not better.
Fire suppression costs continue to rise due, in large part,
to just 3 factors.
The first is the unhealthy state of our forests. The Forest
Service alone has nearly 65 to 85 million acres in the 155
million acre National Forest system that is in need of
restoration and management. The expansion of development in the
wild land urban interface and then finally the changes in
climate, that are bringing longer and more severe fire seasons.
These escalating wildfire suppression costs are causing a
financial crisis within the Forest Service. As you note, the
Forest Service routinely exceeds its suppression budget causing
it to transfer hundreds of millions from other important
programs until some indeterminate date in the future.
Ironically some of these transfers come from programs such as
hazardous fuels that could actually reduce the costs of
suppression in the long term.
Madame Chairman, I think this is a bad way to budget. It
really has very real, very negative consequences for the
management of the non-fire programs. To manage efficiently and
effectively these program accounts need to be free of the kind
of disruption that fire borrowing causes.
That is why I think everyone shares this primary goal of
the fire cap adjustment proposal whether it's the one that is
proposed by the Administration, the one that has been presented
by Senators Wyden and Crapo or the one that Senator McCain is
now adding into this mix. I think we would all agree that what
we have to do here is we've got to stop the fire borrowing.
So the bigger question then is how do we do this in the
most fiscally responsible manner?
We need a dialog. I think this is what we are starting.
This is what, that is so necessary today.
I do believe that we can reach a resolution of the issue
that not only fixes the problem but is also politically tenable
in the current fiscally constrained environment. We know that
budgeting is about priorities. It requires us to be strategic
and efficient with our limited resources.
There are tradeoffs. We all recognize that. But I'm not
sure that the choices that have been made in this budget are
going to help the communities that are dependent upon our
National Forest for economic survival. So we have to have a
budget that provides the funding and the direction to actively
manage for multiple use and that includes one that provides for
a strong timber program, responsible natural resource
development and quality recreation and wildlife programs.
I will have an opportunity to speak with the Chief when he
comes up in the second panel. I'm not particularly excited
about some of the priorities that I'm seeing in his budget for
Alaska. But we'll have an opportunity to discuss that. But I
certainly appreciate the leadership of our colleagues here
before the committee as we address this very, very difficult
issue of fire borrowing.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator.
I'd like now to turn to Senator Feinstein for her opening
statement and then later to introduce Chief Pimlott from the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL
FIRE.
Next Senator Flake has asked to introduce Senator Mc Cain.
Then we will turn to Senator Crapo for his remarks.
Again, thank you, Senators, for taking the time to join us
this morning and give us your thoughts and ideas about how to
move forward.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.
I really want to thank both you and the Ranking Member for
your help with our drought bill. It would not have happened
without you both. I know the end particularly that Senator
Murkowski went to to reconcile anomalies or any problem in the
bill. I'm very grateful for that. I think this is in the best
interest of working together in the Senate.
It's very difficult to overstate the risk of wildfire for
my State. Since January of this year California has battled
3,198 wildfires that burned 27,770 acres. There have been
nearly 900 more fires in California this year as compared to an
average wildfire year.
Madame Chairman, you mentioned the Rim Fire. I will never
forget when I was home for my birthday in June 2008 and on a
single day in Northern California we had 20,000 lightning
strikes that within 4 hours started 2,000 fires. It was a
staggering event to see fire after fire erupt from these
lightning strikes.
The Forest Service reports that much of California faces
heightened risk of wildfire for the remainder of this summer.
With 33 million acres of forest land including 19 million acres
managed by the Federal Government, California always faces a
significant threat of wildfire. However the ongoing drought has
greatly intensified the risk.
Currently every county in California has been declared a
drought disaster by Secretary Vilsack. The State's major
reservoir levels are now at half or below of their historic
levels. No significant rainfall is expected. 69 percent of our
State, that's just about 70 percent of the State, is
experiencing extreme drought conditions.
Essentially California is primed for a major wildfire
disaster. The 3 largest fires in California history have
occurred in the last decade. The report also found that the
annual acreage burned by wildfires after 2000 is almost twice
as much as the period between 1950 and 2000, in other words,
the last half of the century before the new decade.
So what should we do?
I think we've got to change our budgeting process for
wildfire disasters as soon as we can. In 8 of the past 10 years
Congress has had to provide between 2 \1/2\, excuse me, between
200 million and a billion in supplemental funds for wildfire
disaster relief. This year the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior said in May that their programs expect to spend 470
million more on fire suppression this year than they currently
have on hand.
So we never budget enough. I know when I was Chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee, we constantly had to add
supplemental moneys. So clearly, the way we budget needs
reworking.
I have joined Senator Wyden and Crapo as a co-sponsor of
the legislation you mentioned, Madame Chairman. This bill would
pay for the most destructive wildfires out of the Disaster
Relief Fund which is the same way we currently pay for other
natural disasters like hurricanes, floods and earthquakes, but
not severe fire. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I
hope we can prioritize funding for programs that help prevent
wildfires including hazardous fuels removal and forest health.
But we've got to be more proactive. We've got to fix the
budgeting problem. It's only a matter of time until another
destructive fire ravages the West. So I hope that Congress can
act quickly on the Wyden/Crapo bill. I would also note that I
strongly support the President's supplementary request for 615
million in wildfire suppression.
Now I am also very pleased to introduce the gentleman
sitting next to me. His name is Chief Ken Pimlott. He is the
Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection known as CAL FIRE. He oversees a total of 7,000
California fire fighters. So it is a very major department.
He has served as the Director of CAL FIRE since July 2011.
He served California as a fire fighter for 30 years beginning
as a reserve fire fighter with the Contra Costa Fire Protection
District. He joined CAL FIRE in 1987 as a seasonal fire fighter
in the Tulare unit.
Since then he's held a variety of management and fire
protection roles in CAL FIRE including the Assistant Deputy
Director, Pre Fire Management Division Chief and Program
Manager for Cooperative Fire Protection Programs.
Chairman Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski and members,
I'd really like to thank you for this. I'm very pleased to have
the opportunity to introduce a distinguished Californian. I
look forward to the results of this hearing.
So, thank you very much.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
Chief, we'll receive your testimony after the Senators have
completed theirs.
Senator Flake, you wanted to introduce Senator McCain?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARIZONA
Senator Flake. Yes, very, very briefly.
Senator McCain has often said that the battles in Arizona
and in the West in the next century will be over fire and
water. Last week we joined together to work on a water
settlement to benefit the Hualapai Tribe. This week it's fire.
Senator McCain has, as you mentioned, Madame Chair, has
introduced, along with myself and Senator Barrasso, the FLAME
Act amendments, S. 2593. I'm pleased to join him on that. I'll
let him talk about the specifics. But I believe it directly
addresses this fire borrowing problem that we have.
Also like to welcome Dave Tenney here. Dave and I graduated
from Snowflake High School. Dave, I understand, has postponed a
trip to see his first grandson to be able to be here to
testify. So, appreciate that, Dave.
Dave has since moved on and is coaching high school at a
rival school, exhibiting questionable judgment there. But on
fire and on these issues he's very good.
He saw the effects of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, also the
Wallow Fire and has been very instrumental in helping the White
Mountain Stewardship contract work in his role with Navajo
County. We've seen a big fire just in the last couple of weeks.
It was a lot less than it would have otherwise been were it not
for the work that is done under the White Mountain Stewardship
contract.
So, pleased to have Dave here.
Thank you, Madame Chair, for letting me do this.
The Chair. Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Madame Chairman, for the
opportunity to say a few words at today's hearing. I know
you'll agree with me when I say that wildfires are the
predominant issue, fire and water, for Western States in the
21st century. I'm grateful the committee is holding this
hearing on wildfire funding needs of the Forest Service. I'm
appreciative.
I had no idea that you went to high school with Senator
Flake. I'm glad you've done so well.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCain. You're going to receive testimony from the
Navajo County Supervisor, David Tenney, who is from Show Low.
He's fought to bring some remarkable forest treatment projects
to Arizona like the Four Forest Restoration Initiative and the
White Mountain Stewardship Contract which was industry led
forest treatment projects on large landscape levels.
Everybody knows wildfires have increased dramatically in
size, severity and cost over the past few decades. In recent
years we've seen wildfires consume up to 9 million acres during
an extreme wildfire season. Cost over $2 billion to suppress.
Roughly 40 percent of the Forest Service budget.
Compare that to the fires of the 1980s and 1990s which
averaged around 3 million acres per year and cost around $700
million to fight or roughly 15 percent of the budget.
Madame Chairwoman, I watch my home State of Arizona burn
every summer. I'm frustrated beyond words with the slow pace of
forest thinning projects across the West. It's not just
property as the Chairwoman and every member is aware, we lost
19 brave fire fighters a year ago in a terrible tragedy in
Prescott and Yarnell, Arizona.
In my home State of Arizona, over 20 percent of our prime
forests have been destroyed as we are struggling to thin 2.4
million acres for forest land in Arizona. So far of the 2.4
million acres we want thinned, we've thinned about 40,000
acres. That's not going to get it.
Arizona statewide landscape scales forest restoration
program, nationally, the Forest Service estimates that about
62.5 to 82 million acres of National Forest lands are in need
of forest thinning. So far 23 million acres have been
completed.
I understand that the Administration and some in Congress
propose for the wildfire funding issue by categorizing wildfire
appropriation under FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, placing
billions of dollars of suppression costs, ``off budget.'' I
agree that catastrophic wildfires are disastrous, perhaps less
natural disaster and more manmade disaster in many cases.
Yes, wildfires deserve some level of budget flexibility.
But unlike hurricanes and earthquakes the Federal Government
can take action to reduce wildfire severity through forest
thinning. I have concerns about the Administration's proposal
because it essentially throws billions of dollars at wildfires
year after year and fails to address the rising suppression
costs.
Senator Barrasso, Senator Flake and I have introduced the
FLAME Act that would require the Forest Service to budget for
100 percent for suppression needs using the most accurate peer
reviewed budget model available to the Administration. It
allows for some limited access to budget cap exceptions for
extreme wildfires. But it also requires appropriators to invest
in hazardous fuels reduction projects.
We believe industry can play a vital role in thinning our
forests faster and more cost effectively than the Federal
Government. Our bill proposes to expedite environmental
procedures for treatment projects. The proposal will require us
to make tough choices about which Forest Service programs are
spending priorities.
Until we responsibly restore our forest ecosystems to their
natural state, I see no higher priority for the Forest Service
than putting out wildfires and thinning out forests.
I thank the committee for allowing me to speak. I know that
the Chairwoman knows and I know other members, many of whom are
from the West, know the devastation of forest fires and not as
in the fires themselves, but the landslides afterwards, the
ecological disaster, the environmental disaster, the wildlife,
the list goes on and on of the terrible tragedies that ensue
after these forest fires end.
If it keeps up the way it is, it is literally going to
consume every one of our national forests, at least in the
West. Obviously something has to change and change drastically.
So I appreciate the committee and their commitment and yours,
Madame Chairwoman, on this very vital issue.
I thank you.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Let me assure you that I and the Ranking Member and the
members of this committee take this issue very seriously. We
are very sympathetic to the challenges in Arizona,
particularly, with the drought, the fires and the immigration
issue. Your team is working double time. We're going to do
everything we can to assist you.
Senator Crapo, we're happy to have you today.
Then Senator, I think Udall, wants to introduce Mr. Gibbs.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Chairman Landrieu and
Ranking Member Murkowski for holding this important hearing on
how our Nation budgets for seasonal wildfires.
I appreciate you providing me with the opportunity to speak
about a measure that I co-sponsored with Senators Ron Wyden and
Jim Risch, along with a number of other bipartisan members of
the Senate.
S. 1875, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act would fix a
fundamental flaw in how our country funds wildfire suppression.
By way of context it's important to note that the National
Interagency Fire Center reported that last year there were more
than 47,000 wild land fires nationwide that burned 4.3 million
acres. More than 722,000 of those acres burned in my home State
of Idaho alone.
I just reviewed the statistics for this year. The wildfire
season is already well underway in Idaho. As I'm sure it is in
a number of other places in the country.
As more resources go toward fire suppression resources that
could be used to implement projects that improve forest health,
benefit forest communities and enhance public safety are
squeezed. In fact in 8 of the past 10 years Federal agencies'
fire suppression efforts have been under budgeted which has led
to resources being taken from important projects to cover the
Federal Government's response to the wild land fires.
For example, in fiscal year 2013 Federal agencies borrowed
more than $600 million from other accounts to cover the costs
of fire suppression. Such fire borrowing is disruptive to
important forest management missions including activities such
as thinning that would both reduce the occurrence and the
severity of the fires and drive down suppression costs.
In one of the many disruptions in Idaho fire borrowing has
meant that the Forest Service was unable to meet noxious weed
commitments and reduce hazardous fuels while wildlife habitat
treatment projects went unfinished.
In Louisiana, Chairman Landrieu, I understand you've
already made this point, a 1,200-acre timber sale on the
Kisatchie National Forest that was intended for critical
habitat for the Red Cockaded Woodpecker was disrupted.
Ranking Member Murkowski, timber projects and sale
activities have been disrupted in Alaska, as you know, in each
of the past 2 years, at least because of the fire borrowing.
These events have serious economic consequences for the men
and women who work in the logging industry and the many mills
that depend on the timber they produce. What's worse is that
Congress must restore this funding through off budget emergency
spending which is ineffective and bad budget policy.
The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act would give more--give
firefighters and land managers more tools for efficient and
effective fire management and strengthen our fire prevention
efforts.
Our bill would better limit the reallocation of resources
away from fire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction
projects which reduce the cycle of costly fires.
It would also help cover the under budgeted and growing
cost of fire suppression. Importantly our bill would improve
the way wildfire suppression is funded without increasing
Federal funding.
As the Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded, our
bill would not score. It will not increase the deficit. The CBO
explicitly states that S. 1875 would have no effect on the
Federal budget.
This measure accomplishes this by enabling emergency fire
events to be treated like other major natural disasters by
supporting these emergency wildfires through existing disaster
programs. Emergency fire events would be funded under disaster
programs and the routine wild land firefighting costs would be
funded through the regular budgeting process. By allocating
funding for wildfire suppression from within existing disaster
funding limits the legislation does not increase Federal
funding.
Another fire season has already begun and conditions are
concerning. The National Interagency Fire Center reports that
fuels and drought conditions across the West point to a
condition that would support a greater than usual likelihood of
significant fire.
We must take steps now that will put us on improved footing
to face current and future fires.
We must now act to ensure that those protecting our
communities have the resources necessary to decrease the threat
of fires and to respond to wild land fires.
Firefighters, land managers and forest communities deserve
assurance that steps will be taken to continually improve the
Federal response to wildfires. Our legislation would assist
with that effort. Our bill enjoys wide support from both sides
of the aisle and both chambers of Congress and from more than
230 timber, sportsmen and conservation groups.
Again, Madame Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate the
opportunity you've given me to speak to you today on this
important and critical issue and appreciate your attention to
it.
Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Udall is going to take a moment now to introduce
Mr. Gibbs, at his request.
Then we're going to start Chief, with you, for your
testimony.
We have a second panel, so we're going to move through this
hearing pretty quickly. We're going to try to adjourn at 12:15
because votes have been called at 12 o'clock.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madame Chair.
I want to thank you and Senator Murkowski for responding to
my request in holding this hearing. Wildfire, the state of our
forests and what we can do to protect our communities and our
water supplies is a critical issue in Colorado and across the
West, as we've heard from all of our colleagues.
I'm here not only as a Coloradan but as someone whose home
has been subject to a wildfire evacuation order. In Colorado
the question is not if we will have another mega fire, it's
when. Coloradans understand that there's no greater threat to
our special way of life, our water supplies and communities
than wildfire.
Indeed, places like my home town of El Dorado Springs and
other cities and towns across our State are increasingly living
under the threat of wildfire. But we're making progress. For
example, I'm pleased that in the new Farm bill that the
forestry title includes many provisions that support more on
the ground work and streamlining the agency processes. Some of
these, such as the Good Neighbor Authority and Stewardship
Contracting are provisions that I've worked on for years and
have been proud to work in a bipartisan manner with my
Republican colleagues such as Senator McCain and Senator
Barrasso.
This winter I had the opportunity to sit down with
community leaders for a round table discussion about wildfire
and forest health in Frisco, Colorado. Frisco is a thriving
community in the heart of Colorado ski country. I hope you all
have been there. If you haven't, you have to go to Frisco. But
it's also in the middle of the bark beetle epidemic that's
decimated over 4 million acres of forests in my State alone.
Now Dan Gibbs, the Summit County Commissioner, who is here
to testify today, was at that meeting. We heard about a slew of
great projects, as Dan knows, and great ideas that the
community is leading to become safer and more sustainable.
However, I heard over and over that the U.S. Forest Service
can't serve as a reliable partner because of its outdated and
profoundly broken wildfire budgeting system.
That's why I've been right in the middle of leading
bipartisan efforts here in Congress to fundamentally change and
modernize how the Federal Government funds wildfire fighting
and prevention programs so that they're treated like other
natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes. As we've
heard, this approach has been endorsed by over 120 Members of
the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats and 200 groups
ranging from the timber industry to the environmental
community. As the Denver Post Editorial page put it this past
weekend, ``Using disaster fund money for wildfires could solve
a lot of problems long term and we hope Congress sees it that
way.''
Some of the problems that could be solved include freeing
up the National Forest to reduce hazardous fuels, provide
quality recreation experiences and provide the timber supply to
sustain a diverse forest products industry while also providing
safe, modern air tankers to keep our communities and fire
fighters safe. This is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
Study after study shows that for one dollar we spend on
mitigation and prevention we save $4.00 later.
I'm excited to have been able to invite Commissioner Gibbs
to share his experiences with us. He's an expert on this issue
in every sense of the word. He's a wild land firefighter,
former State legislator, who led the State's early efforts to
battle the bark beetle epidemic and he now serves the residents
of Summit County, a place that's dependent on healthy forests
and the outdoor recreation economy.
So again, I want to thank you, Commissioner, for traveling
to Washington to share your perspective on these crucial issues
with this committee.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Udall, for your leadership,
for requesting this meeting, for your consistent leadership on
this issue and for your introduction of Mr. Gibbs.
Chief, we'll begin with you.
If you all can limit to, I think, 5 minutes?
STATEMENT OF KEN PIMLOTT, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE), SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Pimlott. Absolutely.
Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the committee,
Ken Pimlott, Director of CAL FIRE.
I think all of the testimony so far has really hit the nail
on the head and hit the mark for the conditions that we're
facing in the West with drought and 3 years of unprecedented,
below normal precipitation. California and many of the other
Western States are facing unprecedented fire conditions.
Literally as we speak today several large fires are burning in
California, Oregon and Washington.
Again 3 years of critically low precipitation has left
vegetation parched and ripe to burn. Senator Feinstein talked
about 2008 where we had 2,000 fires started from a lightning
event in just a 4 hour period. We are literally just 4 hours
away from a similar event that the fuel conditions are very,
very similar, if not worse than they were then.
So far as a result Southern California has been in a
continuous fire season since April of last year.
Almost 2,000 acres burned on the Angeles National Forest on
January 16th, winter.
San Diego experienced devastating Santa Ana wind driven
fires in May, a phenomenon that normally occurs in the fall
months.
Northern California experienced large fire activity
beginning in January with fires on the Lhasa National Forest
and in Humboldt County, normally one of the wettest places in
the country in January.
The number of fires so far this year, as Senator Feinstein
pointed out, is well above average. They are burning with a
speed and intensity that we would normally see at the peak of
the summer and fall months, literally spotting well ahead of
the fire but consuming the fuel right down to the soil.
We didn't get to these conditions overnight. During the
last 4 decades the average length of fire season has increased
by over 70 days throughout the West. As we experience the
impacts of climate change and periodic drought the frequency
and size of wildfires will only increase into the future.
Therefore it is critical that we continue to invest in
forest management, fire prevention, fuels treatment and a
strong wildfire response. The Western Governors Association,
the National Association of State Foresters, organizations that
California actively participates in, support S. 1875 as a
solution to this challenge. A Federal budgeting mechanism that
fully funds wild land fire response is critical to successfully
addressing this growing wildfire challenge.
An emergency or reserve fund, similar to what California
utilizes to address its extraordinary wild land, firefighting
costs, is important so that emergency firefighting costs on
Federal responsibility areas do not impact the Federal funds
budgeted for forest health, vegetation management and fire
prevention program activities. It takes all of these efforts
combined to combat the extraordinary conditions that we're
seeing the West.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share comments
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pimlott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Pimlott, Director, California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Sacramento, CA
Senator Feinstein hit the mark with her comments. California, as
well as other western states, is facing unprecedented fire conditions.
As we speak today, several large fires are burning in the State.
Three years of critically low precipitation have left vegetation
parched and ripe to burn.
As a result, Southern California has been in continuous fire season
since April of last year (2013). Almost 2000 acres burned on the
Angeles National Forest on January 16th. San Diego experienced
devastating Santa Ana wind driven fires in May, a phenomenon normally
reserved for the fall months.
Northern California experienced large fire activity beginning in
January, with fires on the Lassen National Forest and in Humboldt
County, normally one of the wettest places in the country.
The number of fires so far this year is well above the average and
they are burning with a speed and intensity that would normally occur
in the peak of summer or fall.
We did not get to these critical conditions over night. During the
last four decades, the average length of fire season in the west has
become over 70 days longer.
As we experience the impacts of climate change and periodic
drought, the frequency and size of wild fires will only increase in the
future.
Therefore, it is critical that we continue to invest in forest
management, fire prevention, fuels treatment and a strong wildfire
response.
The Western Governors Association and the National Association of
State Foresters, organizations that California actively participates
in, both support S.1875 as a solution.
A federal budgeting mechanism that fully funds wildland fire
response is critical to successfully addressing this growing wildland
fire challenge.
An emergency or reserve fund, similar to what California utilizes
to address the extraordinary costs of wildland firefighting, is
important so that emergency firefighting costs in federal
responsibility areas do not impact the federal funds budgeted for
forest health, vegetation management and fire prevention program
activities.
It takes all of these, combined, to combat the extraordinary
conditions we are seeing in the west.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Chief.
Mr. Tenney.
STATEMENT OF DAVID PORTER TENNEY, NAVAJO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, NAVAJO, AZ
Mr. Tenney. Thank you.
Madame Chairwoman and committee members, thank you for the
invitation to address you today. For the record, my name is
David Porter Tenney. I am a member of the Board of Supervisors
in Navajo County which is located in Northeastern Arizona.
I appreciate Senator Flake and Senator McCain having me
here today. As far as football season is concerned we'll have a
gentleman's wager a little later on on which team will actually
get it done this year.
I will begin by stating that the Forest Service budget has
a direct impact on the safety and economic prosperity of my
county. I'm no stranger to wildfires or the need to better
manage our forests. The 468,000-acre Rodeo Chediski Fire of
2002 burned in my county and nearly destroyed my home. The
538,000-acre Wallow Fire of 2011 burned in two of my
neighboring counties.
The footprints left by these two fires could comfortably
hold the Cities of Phoenix, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles.
The cost to fight and recover from the fires was over $230
million, not to mention the value of 4 million board feet of
timber that was destroyed and the nearly 500 homes that were
lost.
As a participant of Arizona's 4 forest restoration
initiative I have strongly argued that forest industry is the
key ingredient for managing our forests. Fire suppression alone
cannot and should not be the primary focus. We spend way too
much time and money on putting out burning trees instead of
cutting them and putting them to good use.
Cutting trees saves our forests. It saves our watersheds.
It saves our communities. It improves our economy. It creates
jobs and it saves money.
Thinning the forest is just smart. It is responsible. It
produces measureable results.
I have reviewed the amendment introduced by Senators
McCain, Flake and Barrasso, the FLAME Act amendments. I believe
they have identified a solution. While I appreciate the
Administration's proposal to spend more money on suppression I
would prefer a more fiscally sound way to address rising
wildfire costs. In addition the Administration's proposal does
not guarantee forest thinning projects, but they will move
forward aggressively like the McCain, Barrasso and Flake
proposal.
Our combined mistakes in forest management have changed
rural counties like mine. I am tired of watching my State burn.
We must make a significant departure from the present way of
dealing with landscape wildfire.
Let me give you one recent example that illustrates why
forest thinning is a cost effective way to prevent fires. The
San Juan Fire started June 26 of this year on the White
Mountain Apache Reservation and entered the Apache Sitgreaves
National Forest soon after. The causes of this fire is under
investigation but the fire is now been contained at about 7,000
acres.
The San Juan Fire cost $6.5 million dollars to fight. That
is a cost of $932 dollars an acre to burn trees. If we were to
spend that same $6.5 million on NEPA and forest treatment, the
Apache Sitgreaves would get 50,000 acres cut and put money into
the Treasury. Fifty thousand acres of treated forest is better
than 7,000 acres of nothing, especially when our region of
Arizona has multiple sawmills predicting a short fall of timber
supply this fall.
Let me reiterate that. We could spend on average $128 an
acre in preparing, studying and selling these acres for
treatment or 932 an acre to put out a fire. Even my Snowflake
High School math tells me that's pretty easy decision to make.
Areas where thinning and prescribed fire treatments have
been implemented under the White Mountain Stewardship Contract
modified the San Juan Fire's behavior so that suppression
resources were able to successfully engage the fire. Fire
behavior in the treated areas were significantly reduced with
maximum rates of spread of one to two miles per hour, flame
lengths of 8 to twelve feet and spotting distances of 150 to
200 feet.
In untreated areas the spread was twice as fast. The flame
lengths were ten times as long and spotting was as much as a
half mile.
Certain portions of the fire spread were entirely stopped
by forest thinning and allowed firefighters to quickly and
safely contain the fire by utilizing hand lines, dozer lines
and burning out along the road system in these treated areas.
However, it was not enough to prevent two spotted owl packs
from being destroyed.
Madame Chairwoman and committee members, to a large extent
the rural communities of the Nation were founded on and exist
from the use of the abundant natural resources that surrounded
them. We know that thinning the forest works. It saves money.
It makes money. Yet we currently have a system in place that
misuses taxpayer dollars and gives no chance of improving the
situation.
Right now there's a system in place which is called fire
borrowing. The Forest Service and local supervisor and their
staff typically get their budget sometime in April or May.
That's about 8 months into the fiscal year. Then they have
about 2 months to initiate contracts and other hazardous fuel
treatments and work significant portions of the budget--before
significant portions of their budget get pulled by the
Washington office for fire suppression.
After the fire season, if there's anything left, these
funds are taken or then redistributed. This isn't called fire
borrowing. We call it fire plundering because we know that the
local forest supervisor and their staff rarely get back what
was borrowed.
Usually when you borrow something you give back more than
you take. We call that interest. But right now I can't find any
interest that is served if we don't apply the sound managerial
and fiscal policy that is being proposed by this amendment.
I support Senators McCain and Flake and Barrasso and the
legislation they propose because it bans fire borrowing and
requires the Forest Service to fully fund suppression costs
with a two to one ratio.
The Chair. Can you try to wrap up? It's excellent.
Mr. Tenney. One more paragraph.
The Chair. Go right ahead.
Mr. Tenney. Thank you.
I understand there are a lot of other worthy Forest Service
programs that need funding, but fighting fires and thinning our
forests should be the agency's highest priority. We have proof
that treatment works and dramatically cut down the cost of
suppression in the future. The solution to catastrophic fire is
getting industry back into the forest to thin the trees in an
ecologically and socially sustainable way. Their bill leads us
down this path.
Madame Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to speak
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tenney follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Porter Tenney, Navajo County Board of
Supervisors, Navajo County, Holbrook, AZ, on S. 2363
Mr. Chairman, and Committee members, thank you for the invitation
to address you today. For the record, my name is David Porter Tenney,
and I am a member of the Board of Supervisors in Navajo County, which
is located in northeastern Arizona.
I will begin by stating that the use of forest industry is the key
ingredient for managing our forests. Fire suppression cannot, and
should not be the primary focus. We spend way too much time and money
on putting out burning trees instead of cutting them and putting them
to good use. Cutting trees saves our forests, it saves our watersheds,
it saves our communities, it improves our economy, it creates jobs and
it saves money. Thinning the forest is smart. It is responsible and it
produces measureable results. I have reviewed the Amendment to the
Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014 introduced by Senators McCain, Flake
and Barrasso and I believe they have identified both the problem and
the solution.
The management of natural resources has become critically important
to rural areas across the Country. The 468,000 acre Rodeo-Chediski Fire
of 2002 burned in my county and nearly destroyed my home; and the
538,000 acre Wallow Fire of 2011 burned in two of my neighboring
counties. The footprints left by these two fires could comfortably hold
the cities of Phoenix, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles and the cost to
fight and recover from the fires was over $230,000,000. The fires
destroyed more than 4 billion board feet of timber, and destroyed over
400 homes.
Our combined mistakes in forest management have changed rural
counties like mine, and I am tired of watching my State burn. Starting
with the legislation introduced by Senators McCain, Flake and
Barrasso--we must make a significant departure from the present way of
dealing with landscape wildfire.
Let me give you one recent example that illustrates why. The San
Juan Fire started on June 26, 2014, on the White Mountain Apache
Reservation and entered the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest soon
after detection. The cause is unknown and under investigation, but the
fire has now been contained at approximately 7,000 acres. The San Juan
Fire cost $6,500,000 to fight. That is a cost of $932.00 an acre to
burn trees. If we were to spend that same $6,500,000 on NEPA and forest
treatment, the Apache-Sitgreaves could get 50,000 acres cut and put
money into the Treasury. 50,000 acres of treated forest is better than
7,000 acres of nothing. Especially when our region of Arizona has
multiple saw mills predicting a shortfall of timber supply this fall.
Let me reiterate that. We could spend, on average, $128.00 per acre in
preparing, studying and selling acres for treatment in the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest or spend hundreds more per acre in
suppression and no production. That is not the right plan, but it
illustrates the problem across the Country.
Areas where thinning and prescribed fire treatments had been
implemented under the White Mountain Stewardship Contract modified the
San Juan Fire's behavior so that suppression resources were able to
successfully engage the fire. Fire behavior in the treated areas were
significantly reduced with maximum rates of spread of 1-2 mph, maximum
flame lengths of 8-12 feet, and spotting distances of 150-200 feet. In
most instances, the treated areas burned at about 1-2 feet high and
will produce a beautiful and clean forest. In untreated areas the
spread was twice as fast, had flame lengths 10X as high and spotting of
half a mile. Certain portions of the fire's spread were entirely
stopped by the forest thinning, and allowed firefighters to quickly and
safely contain the fire by utilizing hand-lines, dozer-lines, and
burning out along the road system in these treated areas, however, it
was not enough to prevent two spotted owl packs from being destroyed.
Mr. Chairman, and Committee members, to a large extent, the rural
communities of the Nation were founded on, and exist from, the use of
the abundant natural resources that surrounded them. We know that
thinning in the forest works, it saves money--it makes money, and yet
we currently have a system in place that misuses the taxpayer's
dollars--and gives no chance of improving the situation.
Right now, there is a system in place which is called ``fire
borrowing''. In the Forest Service, a local Forest Supervisor and their
staff typically get their budget sometime in April or May of a given
year. That is about eight months into the fiscal year. They then have
about two months to initiate contracts and other hazardous fuel
treatment work before significant portions of their budget get pulled
out by the Washington Office for fire suppression across the Country.
After the fire season, if there is anything left, the funds that
were taken are then redistributed. I don't call this situation ``fire
borrowing'' I call it ``fire plundering,'' because we know that the
local Forest Supervisor and their staff rarely get back what was
``borrowed''. Usually, when you borrow something you give back more
than you take. We call that interest. But right now, I can't find any
interest that is served if we don't apply the sound managerial and
fiscal policy that is being proposed with this amendment.
I support Senators McCain, Flake and Barrasso and the legislation
they have proposed. Requiring that the equivalent of at least half of
the cost of suppression go to treatment will dramatically cut down on
the cost of suppression in the future. We have proof that treatment
works. The solution to catastrophic wildfire is getting industry back
into the forest to thin the trees in an ecologically and socially
sustainable way. This amendment leads us down that path.
Mr. Chairman, and Committee members, as a county supervisor who has
seen and experienced the consequences of a forest that is not permitted
to be properly managed, I implore you to move this amendment forward.
Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to stand for any
questions.
The Chair. Mr. Tenney, thank you for that excellent
testimony. I tend to agree with a great deal of what you said.
I promise you, we will address it as quickly as we can.
Mr. Tenney. Thank you.
The Chair. Mr. Gibbs.
STATEMENT OF DAN GIBBS, COMMISSIONER, SUMMIT COUNTY,
BRECKENRIDGE, CO
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member
Murkowski, members of the committee. It's a great honor to come
before you today. My name is Dan Gibbs. I'm a County
Commissioner from Summit County, Colorado, but also a wild land
firefighter.
This committee will have the benefit of hearing from
Federal land managers to paint the larger picture of the
wildfire budgeting system. I'd like to share with you how this
current system impacts local Colorado communities.
Summit County is semi-rural community located in the heart
of the Rocky Mountains, serving as a year round, international
destination for outdoor recreation. It's home to the world
known ski areas of Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper Mountain and
Arapaho Basin. The county's permanent population totals about
30,000 people, but it swells to about 160,000 during peak
seasons.
80 percent of Summit County's land mass is Federal lands
including 312,000 acres of the White River National Forest. The
White River National Forest spans 2.3 million acres across
North Western Colorado and receives more than 12 million
visitors per year. This is more visitors than Yellowstone,
Yosemite, Grand Canyon National Parks combined. It's the
busiest national forest in the system.
The natural environment housed in the White River National
Forest is the foundation of our local economy and our
community's cultural identity. It also serves as the largest
drinking water supply for the Denver metro area. As such local
government agencies and private businesses in Summit County
have strong working relationships with local forest managers in
our mutual efforts to provide world class recreation, clean
water and healthy forests.
From this perspective the current model for funding the
response to wild land fires is extremely judgmental to
Colorado's economy and quality of life. In recent years the
White River National Forest has been subject to successive
rounds of budget cuts that hamper the agency's ability to carry
out essential day to day operations, further exacerbating the
situation as what's known as fire borrowing in which local
forest budgets are raided to fund the national response to
wildfires across the country.
Last year our local forest unit had over 480,000
transferred from its normal operating budgets to support
wildfire response efforts. As a result we saw reductions in
trail maintenance, recreation facility maintenance, forest
health work, invasive species control, fish and wildlife
restoration. These reductions have clear negative impacts to
recreation and local economies in the immediate term. Their
effects will be felt years and decades into the future as we
fail to seize windows of opportunity to protect critical
habitats, safeguard our water supplies and prevent the
wildfires of tomorrow.
As wild land fires grow larger and more destructive we
cannot continue to fight them by picking the pockets of our
public land agencies. This short sighted approach diverts
critical funding sources to the symptoms of this problem,
hobbling our thoughtful plans for mitigation and prevention on
the front end through fuels reduction.
Adding urgency to the subject, some counties at the
epicenter of Colorado's massive Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic
which has left millions of acres of dead trees in its wake. For
the last 8 years we've worked cooperatively with U.S. Forest
Service, Colorado State Foresters, local fire districts,
private landowners, to deal with the impacts of this epidemic
and to create a forest condition that will be more resilient to
catastrophic wild fires and future insect disease outbreaks.
This effort is so important to our community that in 2008
Summit County voters overwhelmingly passed a referendum to fund
$500,000 annually to support the creation of defensible space,
resilient forests and support for other wild land mitigation
efforts.
However, when the Federal funding for fuel reduction work
is diverted to fight fires elsewhere it perpetuates the threat
we face in our own backyards. Just last year, for example, a
$72,000 project to clear dead fall in a popular recreation area
was deferred. This had substantial impact on our 50 to 100
miles of trails with associated effects on recreation
opportunities, outfitter guide operations and recreation based
economies.
We cannot afford to delay or defer these types of projects
which are critical to preventing dangerous forest fires. This
is why the Wild Land Fire Suppression cap adjustment is so
important to the residents and visitors of Summit County and to
Colorado as a whole.
I appreciate the assistance that Congress has provided for
land management and restoration activities primarily through
the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act in 2003.
However, there's much more than can be done. Passage of S. 1875
would be an important step in ending the damaging practice of
raiding agency balances to fund fire suppression at the expense
of such important preventative activities as land management
and restoration, fire preparedness and capital improvement. I
strongly urge you to support this bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Gibbs, Summit County Commissioner,
Breckenridge, CO, on S. 1875
Thank you Chairman Landrieu, members of the committee. It is a
great honor to come before you today. My name is Dan Gibbs; I'm a
County Commissioner from Summit County Colorado and also a certified
wildland firefighter.
This Committee has had the benefit of hearing from the U.S. Forest
Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to paint the larger
picture regarding the wildfire budgeting system, and I'd like to share
with you is how this current system impacts local Colorado communities.
The Summit County jurisdiction that I serve is a semi-rural resort
community located in the heart of the Rocky Mountains. The permanent
population of the county is approximately 30,000 people, but swells to
over 160,000 during peak holiday seasons.
Summit County is home to extensive outdoor year-round recreation.
It is comprised of over 80% federal lands and is home to the
internationally recognized ski resorts of Breckenridge, Keystone,
Copper Mountain, and Arapahoe Basin. All of these resorts are located
in the White River National Forest, which receives more than 12 million
visitors annually according to the most recent survey data. This is
more visits per year than Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Canyon
National Parks combined, and is the busiest Forest in the system.
The White River National Forest and our natural environment are the
foundation of our local economy and enhance the quality of life that
our citizens and visitors from all over the world enjoy in Summit
County. We have a strong working relationship with local forest
managers in working to provide the world-class recreation, clean water,
and healthy forests our residents, visitors, and businesses rely on.
However, the current model for funding the response to wildland
fires is extremely detrimental to our economy and quality of life. We
have recently observed that Forest budgets supporting the work to
maintain these characters have been significantly depleted, and are
continuing to trend downward. Further exacerbating this situation is
what is known as ``fire borrowing,'' in which local Forest budgets are
raided to fund the national response to wildfires across the country.
Last year our local Forest unit had over $480,000 transferred from
a range of resource programs to meet the wildfire response effort. As a
result, we saw reductions in trail maintenance, recreation facility
maintenance, forest health work, invasive species control, and fish and
wildlife habitat restoration, all of which had detrimental impacts to
our economy.
As these fires get larger and more destructive we cannot continue
to have these costs come from federal land agencies as we will lose all
the funding we could use to reduce the cost of these disasters at the
front end through fuels reduction.
I also want to highlight that Summit County is at the epicenter of
the massive mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado and the west that
has left hundreds of thousands of acres of dead trees in its wake. For
the last eight years we have worked cooperatively with the US Forest
Service, Colorado State foresters, local fire districts and private
landowners to deal with the impact of this epidemic, and secure a
forest condition that will be more resilient to catastrophic wildfires
and future insect or disease outbreaks. This effort is so important to
our community that in 2008, our voters overwhelmingly passed a
referendum to fund $500,000 annually to support creation of defensible
space, resilient forests and support for other wildland fire mitigation
efforts.
However, when funding to accomplish the fuel reduction and
regeneration work we need is diverted to fight fires elsewhere, it
perpetuates the threat we face in our own backyards.
Just last year, for example, a $72,000 project to clear deadfall
and conduct related trail maintenance in areas affected by the bark
beetle epidemic was deferred. This had a significant impact on 50-100
miles of trails, with associated effects on recreation opportunities,
outfitter-guide operations, and recreation-based community economies.
We cannot afford to delay or defer this type of project that is
critical to preventing potentially dangerous forest fires and this is
why the Wildland Fire Suppression Cap Adjustment is so important to the
residents and visitors to our state and county.
I appreciate the assistance that Congress has provided for land
management and restoration activites--primarily through the passage of
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) in 2003. This law, which came
as a response to major forest fires that occurred throughout the west
in 2002.
However, there is much more that can be done, and passage of S.
1875 the Wildland Fire Suppression Cap Adjustment would be an important
step in ending the damaging practice of raiding agency balances to fund
fire suppression at the expense of such important activities as land
management and restoration, fire preparedness, and capital improvement.
I urge you to support this bill.
Thank you.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs.
All of your testimony was just excellent. We're looking
forward to reviewing it.
Because of time, if any members have questions we could
take them now, but I'd like to introduce the second panel and
be open to questions then. Is that OK with everyone?
Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it.
If the second panel would come forward. While they're
coming forward let me begin the introductions.
Chief Tidwell from the Forest Service.
Chief Tidwell is a veteran of the Forest Service, an expert
in wildfire management. As I mentioned earlier I had the
opportunity to tour the Kisatche National Forest which is
inside of Louisiana in the central part of our State, with him
recently. We spent several hours together and look forward to
hearing his testimony this morning.
I think you all will be encouraged by what he has to say.
I also would like to introduce Kim Thorsen from the
Department of the Interior.
As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Resource
Protection, Emergency Services, Ms. Thorsen has been out on the
front lines of Interior's role in wildfire management and
interdepartmental coordination.
Chief, thank you for being here. We look forward to hearing
from both of you. Chief, we're open for your testimony at this
time.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tidwell. Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Murkowski
and then members of the committee, thank you for having this
hearing. It is impressive to be able to see the other senators
that were here today. What I really appreciate is the general
agreement. We have a problem. I appreciate everyone's work to
find a solution.
You know, once again, we're having another challenging fire
season. It's been described by members here plus the previous
panel. There's just no question that, once again, we're up
against another very challenging season.
We see it with the fires that are going on in California
and also in Oregon and then just another start in Washington.
So there's no question we're going to have another, very
active, probably another 3 months, of very active fire season
that I can share with you that we are ready.
With our cooperating partners there's no country in the
world that has a better model, a better approach for dealing
with wildfire. Because of that we continue to be able to have
our success at 98 percent of being successful to be able to
catch fires during initial attack. With that being said, that 2
percent of fires that get away every year, are the ones that
cause the problems.
Now last year when I was testifying before this committee I
was asking for your support for some key authorities,
Stewardship Contracting, the Good Neighbor Authority. They were
about to expire. So I wanted to first of all thank this
committee for their support through the Farm Bill to make sure
that we continue to have those authorities in addition to the
insect and disease designation.
These authorities, along with our FY 2015 budget request
will allow us to be able to increase the work that we're doing
to restore our national forests and grasslands. To ensure they
continue to provide all the benefits, all the multiple uses
that our public wants and needs from these lands.
This budget request also increases the investment in
reducing fire risk to communities, to our firefighters, by
asking for additional funding in hazardous fuels and additional
funding to be able to restore more acres of our national
forest.
Through the proposed budget cap adjustment we will be able
to finally stop this disruptive practice of having to shut down
operations in August and September just to transfer funds to be
able to pay for fire suppression. Then a few months later to
have Congress repay those funds.
I want to thank Senators Wyden and Crapo for introducing
the Wildfire Disaster Fund Act and for the members who have co-
sponsored that.
I also want to acknowledge Senator McCain's work along with
Senator Barrasso and Flake for their interest to be able to
find a solution to this problem that, what I'm hearing today,
there seems to be general agreement that we need to find a
solution.
As it's been stated numerous times, going back to 1991
where we spent about 13 percent of our budget on fire, today
we're spending over 40 percent of it. In addition to that the
10-year average cost of fire suppression, in just the last 12
years, has gone up $500 million. Under a constrained budget
that's $500 million that has to be taken from all the other
programs that the public relies on for the Forest Service to
provide. We have to take $500 million every year from those
programs just to continue to pay for fire suppression.
The consequences of this is that over this period of time
our staffing has been reduced by 35 percent. Just our staffing
for forest management, the folks that do the work to be able to
reduce the hazardous fuels, the folks that do the work to
restore our forests, that staffing has gone down 49 percent.
Now our staff has done a great job to be able to continue
to treat as many acres as we have over the last 10 years. In
fact based on what we're projecting in FY 2015, we'll be doing
about the same amount of work with about half the number of
people we were doing 12 years ago. But I'll tell you that's
about as far as we can go.
It is time for us to be able to find a new solution and to
be able to, not only stop fire transfer, but at the same time,
have an opportunity to reinvest, to be able to deal with more
of the hazardous fuels issues and to get on top of restoring
our national forests.
Now I can't change the fact there our fire seasons today
are 60 to 80 days longer. They're burning hotter with drier
conditions. We have more homes than ever in the wild land urban
interface.
But I know that we have an opportunity that if we want to
reinvest. We can make a difference to reduce the threat to our
communities, to reduce the threat to our firefighters. But it's
going to take additional investments for us to be able to treat
more acres than we have been able to do in the past.
Madame Chairwoman, thank you again for having this hearing.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Tidwell, Chief, Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service
Chairwoman Landrieu, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide the status of wildland fire program efforts as it pertains to
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 President's Budget Proposal for the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. The April 2,
2014 testimony regarding the entire Forest Service FY 2015 Budget
Request is appended to my statement today.
The FY 2015 President's Budget for the Forest Service focuses on
three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving
communities, and managing wildland fires. It calls for a fundamental
change in how wildfire suppression is funded. It proposes a new and
fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire, contributes to
long-term economic growth, and continues our efforts to achieve the
greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the least cost. This budget will
enable us to more effectively reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more
holistically, and increase resiliency of the Nation's forests and
rangelands as well as the communities that border them.
Increases in large fires in the West have coincided with an
increase in temperatures and early snow melt in recent years. These
factors also contribute to longer fire seasons. The length of the fire
season has increased by over two months since the 1970s (Westerling,
2006). Contributing to the problem of large fires is severe drought,
increased levels of hazardous fuels and a changing climate. Some
experts anticipate future fire seasons on the order of 12 to 15 million
acres burned each year. Extreme wildfire threatens lives and the
natural resources people need and value, such as clean, abundant water;
clean air; fish and wildlife habitat; open space for recreation; and
other forest products and services.
The Forest Service Missoula Fire Lab completed an analysis in 2012
that showed 58 million acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands with
a high, or very high, potential for a large wildfire that would be
difficult for suppression resources to contain (Dillon, 2012). At the
same time, landscapes are becoming more susceptible to fire impacts,
and more Americans are choosing to build their home in the Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI). In the conterminous United States, some 32
percent of housing units (i.e. homes, apartment buildings, and other
human dwellings) and one-tenth of all land with housing units are
situated within the WUI (Radeloff et al., 2005). The Forest Service
estimates that 464 million acres of all vegetated lands are at moderate
to very high risk from uncharacteristically large wildfires (Dillon
2012). The National Association of State Foresters estimates that over
70,000 communities are at risk from wildfire.
reducing hazardous fuels
Excess fuels often include leaf litter and debris on the forest
floor as well as the branches and foliage of small trees. These provide
ladder fuels that often allow surface fires to transition to high
intensity crown fires. Fuel treatments result in more resilient and
healthier ecosystems that provide the many benefits society wants and
needs, including clean water, scenic and recreational values, wood
products, biodiversity, communities that are better able to withstand
wildfire, and safer conditions for firefighters. Unlike other natural
disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes, where the intensity of the
natural event cannot be influenced, the intensity of wildland/wildland-
urban interface fires can be reduced through responsible fuel
management. Fuel treatments can change fire behavior, decrease fire
size and intensity, divert fire away from high value resources, and can
result in reduced suppression costs. When a wildfire starts within or
burns into a fuel treatment area, an assessment is conducted to
evaluate the resulting impacts on fire behavior and fire suppression
actions. Of over 1,400 assessments conducted to date, over 90 percent
of the fuel treatments were effective in changing fire behavior and/or
helping with control of the wildfire (USFS, Fuels Treatment
Effectiveness Database).
There are many programs within the Forest Service that can reduce
the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. These include Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR), Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration,
Hazardous Fuels, Federal and Cooperative Forest Health programs,
Stewardship Contracting, Good Neighbor Authority, State Fire
Assistance, and others. Approaches to restoring fire-adapted ecosystems
often require treatment or removal of excess fuels (e.g., through
mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, or a combination of the two) that
reduce tree densities in uncharacteristically crowded forests, and
application of fire to promote the growth of native plants and
reestablish desired vegetation and fuel conditions.
Through our Hazardous Fuels Program, the Forest Service controls
fuels by removing buildups of dead vegetation and by thinning overly
dense forests that can be hazardous to lives, homes, communities, and
wildland resources. From FY 2001 to FY 2013, the Forest Service treated
about 33 million acres, an area larger than Mississippi. For FY 2015,
we propose $358.6 million for our Hazardous Fuels program. We also
propose performing non-WUI Hazardous Fuels work within the IRR line
item in order to accomplish work more efficiently. With more than
70,000 communities in the WUI at risk from wildfire, the Forest Service
is working through cross-jurisdictional partnerships to help
communities become safer from wildfires. Through the Firewise program,
the number of designated Firewise communities rose from 400 in FY 2008
to nearly 1,000 in FY 2013.
The agency has the capability to protect life, property, and
natural resources while assuring an appropriate, risk-informed, and
effective response to wildfires that is consistent with land and
resource management objectives. However, we cannot do this alone.
Wildland fires are managed by the Federal Government, State, Tribal and
local governments. The Forest Service and Department of Interior (DOI)
alone cannot prevent the loss of life and property. Research
demonstrates that the characteristics of a structure's surroundings
within 100 feet principally determine the potential for ignition from
the thermal radiation emitted by a fire. To improve the survivability
of structures, the Forest Service and DOI work with State and local
governments to develop and implement community protection plans. In
addition, the Forest Service targets hazardous fuels funding to areas
with the highest impact which often includes near communities that have
already taken steps to reduce fire risk. Forest Service programs,
including the State Fire and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs, and
the Federal and Cooperative Forest Health Protection programs provide
important assistance to States, local communities and non-Federal
landowners in responding to, preparing for, and mitigating the threat
of wildland fire.
impacts of increased fire costs
In FY 1991, fire activities accounted for about 13 percent of the
total agency budget; in FY 2012, it was over 40 percent. In the 1980s
and 1990s, the 10-year average of suppression costs remained relatively
stable, as did the number of acres burned nationwide. This was an
abnormally wet period in the United States and fire activity was
relatively low. However, beginning in the extreme fire season of 2000,
which cost $1 billion in suppression, this trend started to change. The
cost of the FY 2000 fires alone caused the 10-year average to rise by
over $80 million--a 16 percent increase. Wildland Fire Management now
makes up almost half of the agency's discretionary budget. Funding fire
suppression has presented budgetary challenges for the Forest Service
including the need to budget less for non-fire programs in an effort to
maintain funding for fire suppression.
Fire transfers from non-fire accounts occur when the agency has
exhausted all available fire resources from the Suppression and FLAME
accounts. From FY 2000 to FY 2013, the Forest Service made fire
transfers from discretionary, trust, and permanent non-fire accounts to
pay for fire suppression costs seven times, ranging from $100 million
in FY 2007 to $999 million in FY 2002, and totaling approximately $3.2
billion. Of the total transferred funds, $2.8 billion was repaid,
however, the transfers still led to disruptions within all Forest
Service programs. In FY 2013, the Forest Service transferred $505
million to the fire suppression and preparedness accounts for emergency
fire suppression due to severe burning conditions and increasing fire
suppression costs. We greatly appreciate the repayment of these
transferred funds provided by Congress as part of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2014.
Each time the agency transfers money out of non-fire accounts to
pay for fire suppression there are significant and lasting impacts
across the entire Forest Service. When funding is transferred from
other programs to support fire suppression operations, these non-fire
programs are impacted because they are unable to accomplish priority
work and achieve the overall mission of the agency. Often this priority
work mitigates wildland fire hazards in future years. In addition,
transfers negatively impact local businesses and economies, costing
people jobs and income as a result of delayed or cancelled projects.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act, Public Law 111-88, Title V-FLAME
Act requires the Forest Service to report estimates of anticipated
wildland fire suppression costs for each fiscal year. The July 2014
forecast predicts that with 90 percent confidence fire suppression
costs will be between $924 million and $1.61 billion for FY 2014, with
a median forecast of $1.27 billion. If the FY 2014 fire season tracks
those from the past, we would expect to transfer money from critical
mission delivery activities, including fuels reduction and forest
thinning projects that reduce the threat of wildfires as well as
several of our permanent and trust funds. In his request for emergency
supplemental appropriations for the humanitarian situation in the
Southwest, the President has included $615 million to provide for the
necessary expenses for wildfire suppression and rehabilitation
activities this fiscal year in order to avoid transferring funds from
other wildfire treatment and protection activities. In addition, the
President's supplemental request includes language to support a
discretionary cap adjustment to allow the Federal Government to respond
to severe, complex and threatening fires or a severe fire season
similar to how other natural disasters are funded.
fire suppression funding proposal
The FY 2015 Budget proposes a new funding strategy that recognizes
the negative effects of funding fire suppression as we have
historically. The budget proposes funding catastrophic wildland fires
similar to other disasters. Funded in part by additional budget
authority provided through a budget cap adjustment for wildfire
suppression, the budget proposes discretionary funding for wildland
fire suppression at a level which reflects the level of spending
associated with suppression of 99 percent of wildfires. In addition,
the budget includes up to $954 million to be available under a disaster
funding cap adjustment to meet suppression needs above the base
appropriation. This proposed funding level includes the difference
between the funds appropriated and the upper limit of the 90th
percentile range forecast for suppression costs for FY 2015. This
additional funding would be accessed with Secretarial declaration of
need or imminent depletion of appropriated discretionary funds. This
strategy provides increased certainty in addressing growing fire
suppression needs, better safeguards non-suppression programs from
transfers that diminish their effectiveness, and allows us to stabilize
and invest in programs that more effectively restore forested
landscapes, treat forests for the increasing effects of climate change,
and prepare communities in the WUI for future wildfires.
wildland fire aviation assets
Airtankers are a critical part of our response to wildfire. Their
use plays a crucial role in keeping some fires small and greatly
assists in controlling the large fires. Accordingly, we are
implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy to replace our
aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our strategy, reflected in
our budget request, would fund both the older aircraft still in
operation and the next-generation airtankers currently under contract.
The Forest Service expects to have a sufficient number of large
airtankers available through exclusive use contracts this fire season.
This includes a total of up to nine Next Generation airtankers and
eight Legacy airtankers. The Forest Service will also have 15 to 17
other airtankers available through agreements with cooperators,
including eight military C-130s equipped with Modular Airborne Fire
Fighting Systems, eight CV580s through agreements with the State of
Alaska and Canada, and one Very Large Airtanker (DC-10) through a Call
When Needed contract.
challenges for the future
Our evolving approach to managing wildland fire is integral to
meeting our goals of safety, landscape-scale restoration, cross-
boundary landscape conservation, and risk management. We continue to
learn more about wildland fire, and we continue to apply what we learn
through fire and risk management science in partnership with States,
communities, and other Federal agencies. We strive to maximize our
response capabilities and to support community efforts to reduce the
threat of wildfire and increase ecosystem resilience. The agency has
made great progress in its continued focus on risk-based decision-
making when responding to wildfires, and in 2015 will continue this
important work to better inform decision makers on the risks and trade-
offs associated with wildfire management decisions.
Addendum.--Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service
before the house committee on appropriations, subcommittee on interior,
environment, and related agencies concerning president's fiscal year
2015 proposed budget for the usda forest service
April 2, 2014.
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) 2015. I appreciate the support this
subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past, and in
particular, thank you for your hard work on the FY 2014 Appropriations
Act. When I testified before you last year, there were a number of
important authorities, like stewardship contracting and good neighbor
authority, which were set to soon expire. Thanks to the hard work of
Congress on the 2014 Appropriations Act and the 2014 Farm Bill, we are
in a much better position this year. I look forward to continuing to
work together with members of the 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 fiscal restraint, efficiency, and cost-effective
spending.
The FY 2015 President's Budget for the Forest Service focuses on
three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving
communities, and managing wildland fires. It calls for a fundamental
change in how wildfire suppression is funded. It proposes a new and
fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire, contributes to
long-term economic growth, and continues our efforts to achieve the
greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the least cost. This budget will
enable us to more effectively reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more
holistically, and increase resiliency of the Nation's forests and
rangelands as well as the communities that border them.
The President's 2015 Budget also includes a separate, fully paid
for $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGS
Initiative). The Initiative identifies additional discretionary
investments that can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and
strengthen national security. The OGS Initiative includes funding for
Forest Service programs. The OGS Initiative includes $18 million for
Research and Development and would focus on energy security and
national economic stability while simultaneously addressing our
conservation and restoration goals. In addition, the OGS Initiative
includes $61 million for Facilities and Trails to provide essential
infrastructure maintenance and repair to sustain the benefits of
existing infrastructure as domestic investments to grow our economy.
As part of the President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative and a permanent legislative proposal, the Forest Service
would also have the opportunity to compete for conservation and
infrastructure project funding included within the Centennial
initiative. The Centennial initiative supporting the 100th Anniversary
of the National Park Service, features a competitive opportunity for
the public land management bureaus within the Department of the
Interior and the Forest Service to address conservation and
infrastructure project needs. The program would be managed within
Interior's Office of the Secretary in conjunction with the Department
of Agriculture with clearly defined project criteria. The
Administration proposes $100 million for the National Park Service
anniversary's Centennial Land Management Investment Fund, as part of
the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative and $100 million for
conservation and infrastructure projects annually for three years as
part of a separate legislative proposal.
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative also includes a $1
billion Climate Resilience Fund. A portion of this funding source
allows us to continue to invest in research to better understand the
projected impacts of climate change and how we can better prepare our
communities and infrastructure. The Fund would also serve to fund
breakthroughs in technologies and resilient infrastructure development
that will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate. The
Fund proposal includes three Forest Service programs: an increase of
$50 million for State Fire Assistance Grants to increase the number of
communities that are ``Firewise'' and the number of communities
implementing building codes and building protection requirements,
resulting in increased protection of communities, their residents and
private property; an increase of $50 million for IRR and Hazardous
Fuels to enhance support for public lands managers to manage landscape
and watershed planning for increased resilience and risk reduction; and
an increased $25 million for Urban and Community Forestry to maintain,
restore and improve urban forests mitigating heat islands and other
climate change impact.
value of the forest service
Our mission at the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. The Forest Service
manages a system of national forests and grasslands totaling 193
million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico, an area almost twice the
size of California. These lands entrusted to our care provide some of
the richest resources and most breathtaking scenery in the Nation, are
the source of drinking water for millions of Americans, and support
hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thousands of communities across the
Nation depend on the national forests for their social well-being and
economic prosperity.
Since our founding in 1905, as the Nation's leading forestry
organization, we continue to serve Americans by supporting the
sustainable stewardship of more than 600 million acres of non-Federal
forest land across the Nation, including 423 million acres of private
forest land, 69 million acres of State forest land, 18 million acres of
Tribal forests, and over 100 million acres of urban and community
forests. This commitment to sustainable forest management helps
Americans use their lands while caring for them in ways that benefit
them, their families, their communities, and the entire Nation.
We also maintain the largest forestry research organization in the
world, with more than a century of discoveries in wood and forest
products, fire behavior and management, and sustainable forest
management. We are pursuing cutting-edge research in nanotechnology and
green building materials, expanding markets for woody biomass. Land
managers across the Nation use the results of our research to conserve
forests, ensuring continuation of a full range of benefits for future
generations.
America's forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral
to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. They
play a vital role in providing public benefits such as clean air, clean
water, mineral and energy production, and fertile soils for supporting
timber, forage, carbon storage, food and fiber, fish and wildlife
habitat, along with myriad opportunities for outdoor recreation. The
Forest Service provides a valuable service to the public by restoring
and improving forest, grassland, and watershed health; by producing new
knowledge through our research; and by providing financial and
technical assistance to partners, including private forest landowners.
The benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include
jobs and economic activity. Jobs and economic benefits stem not only
from public use of the national forests and grasslands, but also from
Forest Service management activities and infrastructure investments. We
complete an economic analysis that calculated activities on the
National Forest System contributed over $36 billion to America's gross
domestic product, and supported nearly 450,000 jobs during FY 2011.
Through our Job Corps and other programs including the 21st Century
Conservation Service Corps, we provide training and employment for
America's youth, and we help veterans transition to civilian life. Our
Urban and Community Forestry Program has provided jobs and career-
training opportunities for underemployed adults and at-risk youth.
The Forest Service routinely leverages taxpayer funds by engaging
partners who contribute to investments in land management projects and
activities. In FY 2013, for example, we entered into more than 8,200
grants and agreements with partners who made a total of about $540
million in cash and noncash contributions. Combined with our own
contribution of nearly $730 million, the total value of these
partnerships was over $1.27 billion.
Other noncommercial uses provide crucial benefits and services to
the American people. Many Tribal members use the national forests and
grasslands for hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods and other
materials for personal use. They also use sacred sites on NFS lands for
ritual and spiritual purposes.
National forests and grasslands attract about 160 million visits
annually, and 55 percent of those visitors engage in strenuous physical
activities. Based on studies showing that outdoor activities contribute
to improved health and increased fitness, the availability of the
Nation's forests and grasslands to all Americans provide other tangible
benefits. In addition, since more than 83 percent of Americans live in
metropolitan areas where opportunities to experience nature are often
reduced, the Forest Service has developed an array of programs designed
to get people into the woods, especially children. Each year, we reach
an average of more than 5 million people with conservation education
programs.
challenges to conservation
Our Nation's forest and grassland resources continue to be at risk
due to drought, uncharacteristically severe wildfire behavior, invasive
species, and outbreaks of insects and disease. Although biodiversity
remains high on national forests and grasslands, habitat degradation
and invasive species pose serious threats to 27 percent of all forest-
associated plants and animals, a total of 4,005 species.
The spread of homes and communities into wildfire-prone areas is an
increasing management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, the United States
could see substantial increases in housing density on 44 million acres
of private forest lands nationwide, an area larger than North and South
Carolina combined. More than 70,000 communities are now at risk from
wildfire, and less than 15,000 have community wildfire protection
plans.
This same growth and development is also reducing America's forest
habitat and fragmenting what remains. From 2010 to 2060, the United
States is predicted to lose up to 31 million acres of forested lands,
an area larger than Pennsylvania.
Forest Service scientists predict that fire seasons could return to
levels not seen since the 1940s, exceeding 12 to 15 million acres
annually. Highlighting these concerns, for the first time since the
1950s, more than 7 million acres burned nationwide in 2000 and more
than 9 million acres burned in 2012. In 2013, the largest fire ever
recorded in the Sierra Nevada occurred, and a devastating blaze in
Arizona killed 19 highly experienced firefighters.
budget request and focus areas
To meet the challenges ahead, the Forest Service is focusing in
three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving
communities, and managing wildland fires. We continue to implement
cultural initiatives and cost savings measures focused on achieving a
safer, more inclusive, and more efficient organization. To help us
achieve these goals, the President's proposed overall budget for
discretionary funding for the Forest Service in FY 2015 is $4.77
billion. The Budget also proposes a new and fiscally responsible
funding strategy for wildand fire that recognizes that catastrophic
wildland fires should be considered disasters, funded in part by
additional budget authority provided through a budget cap adjustment
for wildland fire suppression. Combined with the funding for fire
suppression in the discretionary request, this strategy will fully fund
estimated wildfire suppression funding needs.
Restoring Resilient Landscapes
Our approach to addressing ecological degradation is to embark on
efforts that support ecological restoration allowing for healthier more
resilient ecosystems. In cooperation with our partners across shared
landscapes, we continue to ensure that the Nation's forests and
grasslands retain their ability to deliver the social, economic, and
ecological values and benefits that Americans want and need now and for
generations to come.
In February 2011, President Obama launched the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for
conservation and outdoor recreation in the 21st century. In tandem with
the President's initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack outlined
an All Lands vision for conservation calling for partnerships and
collaboration to reach shared goals for restoring healthy, resilient
forested landscapes across all landownerships nationwide. In response,
the Forest Service has launched an initiative to accelerate restoration
across shared landscapes. The Accelerated Restoration Initiative builds
on Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR), the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), the 2012 planning rule, and
other restoration-related programs and initiatives to pick up the pace
of ecological restoration while creating more jobs in rural
communities. Our collaborative, holistic approach to restoring forest
and grassland health relies on the State Forest Action Plans and the
Forest Service's own Watershed Condition Framework to identify high-
priority areas for restoration treatments.
In FY 2012, Congress authorized the Forest Service to pilot test
the combination of multiple budget line items into a single line item
for IRR. By combining funds from five budget line items we can better
integrate and align watershed protection and restoration into all
aspects of our management. In FY 2013, our integrated approach restored
almost over 2,533,000 acres of forest and grassland, decommissioned
1,490 miles of roads, and restored 4,168 miles of stream habitat
substantially improving conditions across 12 entire watersheds across
the NFS. Given the success demonstrated in the three pilot regions, we
propose fully implementing IRR across the entire Forest Service in FY
2015. We propose a national IRR budget of $820 million. Investing in
IRR in FY 2015 is expected to result in 2,700,000 watershed acres
treated, 3.1 billion board feet of timber volume sold, approximately
2,000 miles of road decommissioned, and 3,262 miles of stream habitat
restored or enhanced. An estimated 26 watersheds will be restored to a
higher condition class in FY 2015.
CFLRP was created in 2009 to help restore high-priority forested
landscapes, improve forest health, promote job stability, create a
reliable wood supply, and to reduce firefighting risks across the
United States. The Secretary of Agriculture selected 23 large-scale
projects for 10-year funding. Although the projects are mostly on NFS
land, the collaborative nature of the program ties communities to local
forest landscapes, engaging them in the work needed to restore the
surrounding landscapes and watersheds. We propose to increase
authorization for this successful collaborative program in the FY 2015
President's Budget. We propose to increase the program authorization to
$80 million and are requesting $60 million in FY 2015 to continue
implementation of the current 23 projects and for inclusion of
additional projects. All of the existing projects are on track to meet
their 10-year goals, and to date, more than 588,461 acres of wildlife
habitat have been improved, while generating 814 million board feet of
timber and 1.9 million green tons of biomass for energy production and
other uses.
To gain efficiencies in our planning efforts, the Forest Service is
moving forward with implementing a new land management planning rule.
The new rule requires an integrated approach to forest plan preparation
and multilevel monitoring of outcomes that allows for adaptive
management, improved project implementation, and facilitated landscape
scale restoration. We are also working to be more efficient in our
environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) through development of three restoration-related categorical
exclusions promoting hydrologic, aquatic, and landscape restoration
approved in 2013. Other investments in ``Electronic Management of
NEPA'' (eMNEPA) have significantly reduced administrative costs; we
estimate that we save approximately $17 million each year because of
these investments. Collectively, these efforts will help land managers
to focus on collaborative watershed restoration efforts that also
promote jobs and economic opportunities in rural communities.
Building Thriving Communities
The Forest Service works to build thriving communities across the
Nation by helping urban communities reconnect with the outdoors, by
expanding the benefits that both rural and urban residents get from
outdoor recreation, and by providing communities with the many economic
benefits that result from sustainable multiple-use management of the
national forests and grasslands.
Through our Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage program, we are
dedicated to serving tens of millions of recreation visitors each year.
Rural communities rely on the landscapes around them for hunting,
fishing, and various amenities; the places they live are vital to their
identity and social well-being. We maintain these landscapes for the
character, settings, and sense of place that people have come to
expect, such as popular trail corridors and viewsheds.
In support of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
and the First Lady's ``Let's Move'' initiative, we are implementing a
Framework for Sustainable Recreation. The framework is designed to
ensure that people of all ages and from every socioeconomic background
have opportunities to visit their national forests and grasslands-and,
if they wish, to contribute through volunteer service. We focus on
sustaining recreational and heritage-related activities on the National
Forest System for generations to come. That includes maintaining and
rehabilitating historic buildings and other heritage assets for public
use, such as campgrounds and other historic facilities built by the
Civilian Conservation Corps.
A significant portion of our budget to sustain operations for
outdoor recreation--roughly 20 percent--comes from fees collected under
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), of the fees
collected, 95 percent are locally reinvested to maintain and restore
the facilities and services for outdoor recreation that people want and
need. We propose permanent authority for the FLREA while clarifying its
provisions and providing more consistency among agencies. This is an
interagency proposal with the Department of the Interior.
For decades, the Forest Service has focused on protecting and
restoring critical forested landscapes, not only on the national
forests, but also on non-Federal lands. All 50 States and Puerto Rico
prepared comprehensive State Forest Action Plans identifying the
forested landscapes most in need of protection and restoration. Based
on the State plans, the Forest Service has been working with State and
other partners to tailor our programs accordingly, applying our limited
resources to the most critical landscapes.
In FY 2014, we began building on our successful State and Private
Forestry Redesign initiative through a new program called Landscape
Scale Restoration. The program allows States to continue pursuing
innovative, landscape-scale projects across the Forest Health
Management, State Fire Assistance, Forest Stewardship, and Urban and
Community Forestry programs without the limitation of a specific mix of
program funding. The program is designed to capitalize on the State
Forest Action Plans to target the forested areas most in need of
restoration treatments while leveraging partner funds. We propose
funding the new program at almost $24 million.
We are also using the State Forest Action Plans to identify and
conserve forests critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs through
our Forest Legacy Program. Working through the States, we provide
working forests with permanent protection by purchasing conservation
easements from willing private landowners. As of February 2014, the
Forest Legacy Program had protected more than 2.36 million acres of
critical working forests, benefiting rural Americans in 42 States and
Puerto Rico.
We propose $53 million in discretionary funding for Forest Legacy
and $47 million in mandatory funds, from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), for a total of $100 million. The increase is
a key component of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
to conserve critical landscapes and reconnect Americans to the outdoors
through reauthorizing the LWCF as fully mandatory funds in FY 2016.
In a similar vein, our Land Acquisition Program is designed to
protect critical ecosystems and prevent habitat fragmentation. In
accordance with the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we
worked with the Department of the Interior to establish a Federal
interagency Collaborative Landscape Planning Program, designed to
leverage our joint investments and coordinate our efforts to protect
intact, functioning ecosystems across entire landscapes. Land
acquisitions are a proven value for the taxpayer, making it easier and
less expensive for people to access their public lands-and easier and
less expensive for the Forest Service to manage and restore the lands
entrusted to our care. An analysis by The Trust for Public Land showed
that every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition returns $4 to the
taxpayer; taking returns beyond 10 years into account, the benefits are
even greater.
The President's FY 2015 budget proposes $51 million in
discretionary funding for our Federal Land Acquisition program and
almost $76.7 million in mandatory funding from the LWCF, for a combined
total of $127.7 million. These mandatory funds are part of the
President's proposed LWCF reauthorization with fully mandatory funds
starting in FY 2016.
Working with the Department of the Interior, we propose to
permanently authorize annual mandatory funding, without further
appropriation or fiscal year limitation for the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture LWCF programs beginning in fiscal year 2015.
Starting in 2016, $900 million annually in permanent funds would be
available. During the transition to full permanent funding in 2015, the
budget proposes $900 million in total LWCF funding, comprised of $550
million in permanent and $350 million discretionary funds.
Another legislative proposal listed in our FY 2015 budget is an
amendment to the Small Tracts Act to provide land conveyance authority
for small parcels, less than 40 acres, to help resolve encroachments or
trespasses. Proceeds from the sale of National Forest System lands
under this proposed authority would be collected under the Sisk Act and
used for future acquisitions and/or enhancement of existing public
lands.
We are also helping communities use their wood resources for
renewable energy. Through the Forest Service's Woody Biomass
Utilization Grants Program, we are funding grants to develop community
wood-to-energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood-based energy
systems and in FY 2013, State and Private Forestry awarded ten biomass
grant awards totaling almost $2.5 million to small businesses and
community groups. In an interagency effort with the Rural Utilities
Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Business-Cooperative Service
within USDA Rural Development and the Farm Service Agency, the USDA
Wood to Energy Initiative synergistically facilitates achievement of
the cooperating agencies' goals. The Forest Service leverages its small
amount of grant funds with the Rural Development's grant and loan
programs by providing subject matter expertise and technical assistance
in the early stages of project development, so the proponents can
successfully compete for Rural Development's loans and grants. Our goal
is lower energy bills, greater rural prosperity, and better
environmental outcomes overall.
Better environmental outcomes result, in part, from removing woody
materials to restore healthy, resilient forested landscapes. Many of
the materials we remove have little or no market value, and by finding
new uses for them through our Research and Development Programs, we can
get more work done, producing more jobs and community benefits. Our
Bioenergy and Biobased Products Research Program is leading the way in
researching wood-based energy and products. Through discoveries made at
our Forest Products Lab, woody biomass can now be used to develop
cross-laminated timber for building components such as floors, walls,
ceilings, and more. Completed projects have included the use of cross-
laminated panels for 10-story high-rise buildings.
Over 83 percent of America's citizens now live in urban areas. For
most Americans, their main experience of the outdoors comes from their
local tree-lined streets, greenways, and parks, not to mention their
own backyards. Fortunately, America has over 100 million acres of urban
forests, an area the size of California. Through our Urban and
Community Forestry Program, the Forest Service has benefited more than
7,000 communities, home to 196 million Americans, helping people reap
the benefits they get from trees, including energy conservation, flood
and pollution control, climate change mitigation, and open spaces for
improved quality of life.
We are expanding our work with cities such as New York,
Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, working with an array of partners in the
Urban Waters Federal Partnership to restore watersheds in urban areas.
We are also helping communities acquire local landscapes for public
recreation and watershed benefits through our Community Forest and Open
Space Conservation Program, which is funded at $1.7 million in the FY
2015 President's Budget. Our goal is to help create a Nation of
citizen-stewards committed to conserving their local forests and
restoring them to health for all the benefits they get from them.
Our community focus supports the President's America's Great
Outdoors Initiative to achieve landscape-scale restoration objectives,
connect more people to the outdoors, and support opportunities for
outdoor recreation while providing jobs and income for rural
communities. Building on existing partnerships, we have established a
21st Century Conservation Service Corps to help us increase the number
of work and training opportunities for young people and veterans while
accomplishing high-priority conservation and restoration work on public
lands.
Managing Wildland Fires
The Administration has worked this year to analyze and develop a
strategy to address catastrophic fire risk. The Budget calls for a
change in how wildfire suppression is funded in order to reduce fire
risk, to more holistically manage landscapes, and to increase the
resiliency of the Nation's forests and rangelands and the communities
that surround them. The cost of suppression has grown from 13 percent
of the agency's budget just 10 years ago to over 40 percent in 2014.
This increase in the cost of wildland fire suppression is subsuming the
agency's budget and jeopardizing its ability to implement its full
mission. The growth in the frequency, size, and severity of fires in
recent years; along with the continual expansion of the wildland urban
interface (WUI) have all increased the risks of catastrophic fires to
life and property. Collectively these factors have resulted in
suppression costs that exceeded amounts provided in annual
appropriations requiring us to transfer funds from other programs to
cover costs. This shift in funding is creating a loss in momentum for
critical restoration and other resource programs as fire transfers
deplete the budget by up to $500 million annually.
The FY 2015 Budget proposes a new funding strategy that recognizes
the negative effects of funding fire suppression as we have
historically. The budget proposes funding catastrophic wildland fires
similar to other disasters. Funded in part by additional budget
authority provided through a budget cap adjustment for wildfire
suppression, the budget proposes discretionary funding for wildland
fire suppression at a level equal to 70 percent of the estimated 10-
year average suppression costs, which reflects the level of spending
associated with suppression of 99 percent of wildfires. In addition,
the budget includes up to $954 million to be available under a disaster
funding cap adjustment to meet suppression needs above the base
appropriation. This proposed funding level includes 30 percent of the
10-year average of fire suppression costs and the difference to the
upper limit of the 90th percentile range forecast for suppression costs
for FY 2015. This additional funding would be accessed with Secretarial
declaration of need or imminent depletion of appropriated discretionary
funds. This strategy provides increased certainty in addressing growing
fire suppression needs, better safeguards non-suppression programs from
transfers that diminish their effectiveness, and allows us to stabilize
and invest in programs that more effectively restore forested
landscapes, treat forests for the increasing effects of climate change,
and prepare communities in the WUI for future wildfires.
Our evolving approach to managing wildland fire is integral to
meeting our goals of safety, landscape-scale restoration, cross-
boundary landscape conservation, and risk management. We continue to
learn more about wildland fire, and we continue to apply what we learn
through fire and risk management science in partnership with States,
communities, and other Federal agencies. We strive to maximize our
response capabilities and to support community efforts to reduce the
threat of wildfire and increase ecosystem resilience. The agency has
made great progress in its continued focus on risk-based decision-
making when responding to wildfires, and in 2015 will continue this
important work to better inform decision makers on the risks and trade-
offs associated with wildfire management decisions. The Budget also
furthers efforts to focus hazardous fuels treatments on 1.4 million WUI
acres focused on high priority areas identified in Community Wildfire
Protection Plans.
Through our Hazardous Fuels Program, the Forest Service controls
fuels by removing buildups of dead vegetation and by thinning overly
dense forests that can be hazardous to lives, homes, communities, and
wildland resources. From FY 2001 to FY 2013, the Forest Service treated
about 33 million acres, an area larger than Mississippi. For FY 2015,
we propose $358.6 million for our Hazardous Fuels program. We also
propose performing non-WUI Hazardous Fuels work within the IRR line
item in order to accomplish work more efficiently. With more than
70,000 communities in the WUI at risk from wildfire, the Forest Service
is working through cross-jurisdictional partnerships to help
communities become safer from wildfires. Through the Firewise program,
the number of designated Firewise communities rose from 400 in FY 2008
to nearly 1,000 in FY 2013.
Our Hazardous Fuels program is also designed to help firefighters
manage wildfires safely and effectively, and where appropriate, to use
fire for resource benefits. Our Preparedness program is designed to
help us protect lives, property, and wildland resources through an
appropriate, risk-based response to wildfires. Preparedness has proven
its worth; Fire Program Analysis, a strategic management tool, shows
that every $1.00 subtracted from preparedness funding adds $1.70 to
suppression costs because more fires escape to become large and large
fires are more expensive to suppress. Unless we maintain an adequate
level of preparedness, we risk substantial increases in overall fire
management costs.
Airtankers are a critical part of our response to wildfire. Their
use plays a crucial role in keeping some fires small and greatly
assists in controlling the large fires. Accordingly, we are
implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy to replace our
aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our strategy, reflected in
our budget request, would fund both the older aircraft still in
operation and the next-generation airtankers currently under contract.
It would also cover required cancellation fees and the C-130 Hercules
aircraft transferred by the U.S. Coast Guard.
safety and inclusion
In addition to our focus on restoring resilient landscapes,
building thriving communities, and managing wildland fire, we continue
our agency efforts to become a safer, more diverse, and more inclusive
organization.
Accomplishing our work often takes us into high-risk environments.
For that reason, for several years now, we have undertaken a learning
journey to become a safer organization. Every one of our employees has
taken training to become more attuned to safety issues and the need to
manage personal risk. As part of this effort, safety means recognizing
the risk and managing it appropriately. Our goal is to become a zero-
fatality organization through a constant, relentless focus on safety.
Recognizing that more than 83 percent of Americans live in
metropolitan areas, the Forest Service is outreaching to urban and
underserved communities to introduce more people to opportunities to
get outdoors, to participate in NFS land management, and to engage in
conservation work in their own communities. Part of this inclusiveness
is creating new opportunities to come into contact with and to hiring
individuals from various backgrounds that might not otherwise be
exposed to other Forest Service programs.
cost savings
The Forest Service is committed to achieving the greatest benefits
for the taxpayer at the least cost. Mindful of the need for savings, we
have taken steps to cut operating costs. Taking advantage of new
technologies, we have streamlined and centralized our financial,
information technology, and human resources operations to gain
efficiencies and save costs. We continue to work with other USDA
agencies under the Blueprint for Stronger Service to develop strategies
for greater efficiencies in key business areas. In FY 2013, we saved
millions of dollars through additional measures to promote
efficiencies, ranging from an $800,000 annual savings through
consolidation of local telephone service accounts to right-sizing our
existing Microsoft software licenses, which yielded over $4 million in
savings in FY 2013. In FY 2013, we also instituted measures that will
yield $100 million in cost pool savings by FY 2015.
Another cost saving highlight is the Forest Service completion of
the design and construction for the renovation of the Yates Building on
schedule, and within budget. On January 13, 2014, following completion
of the renovation, all 762 Washington Office located employees apart
from International Programs were finally located in the same building.
Beside these benefits, this move is expected to saves $5 million
annually in leasing costs.
future outlook
For more than a century, the Forest Service has served the American
people by making sure that their forests and grasslands deliver a full
range of values and benefits. America receives enormous value from our
programs and activities, including hundreds of thousands of jobs and
annual contributions to the economy worth many times more than our
entire annual discretionary budget. Especially in these tough economic
times, Americans benefit tremendously from investing in Forest Service
programs and activities.
Now we are facing some of the greatest challenges in our history.
Invasive species, climate change effects, regional drought and
watershed degradation, fuel buildups and severe wildfires, habitat
fragmentation and loss of open space, and devastating outbreaks of
insects and disease all threaten the ability of America's forests and
grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services that Americans
want and need. In response, the Forest Service is increasing the pace
and scale of ecological restoration. We are working to create healthy,
resilient forest and grassland ecosystems capable of sustaining and
delivering clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, opportunities for
outdoor recreation, and many other benefits.
Our budget request focuses on the public's highest priorities for
restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, and
safely managing wildland fire while providing an effective emergency
response. Our requested budget will enable us to address the growing
extent and magnitude of our management challenges and the mix of values
and benefits that the public expects from the national forests and
grasslands. We will continue to lead the way in improving our
administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness in
mission delivery. Our research will continue to solve complex problems
by creating innovative science and technology for the protection,
sustainable management, and use of all forests, both public and
private, for the benefit of the American people. Moreover, we are
working ever more effectively to optimize our response to cross-cutting
issues by integrating our programs and activities.
We can achieve these priorities through partnerships and
collaboration. Our budget priorities highlight the need to strengthen
service through cooperation, collaboration, and public-private
partnerships that leverage our investments to reach shared goals.
Through strategic partnerships, we can accomplish more work while also
yielding more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of all
generations to come.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the Committee Members have for me.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
Ms. Thorsen.
STATEMENT OF KIM THORSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY, RESOURCE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Thorsen. Chairwoman Landrieu, Ranking Member Murkowski
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on the Department of Interior's readiness for the
2014 wild land fire season. I've submitted my prepared
statement for the record and would like to just make a few
opening comments.
The National Wildfire potential outlook issued for the
period of July through September predicts above normal fire for
July over much of California, the Northwest and the Great
Basin. In August we expect California, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington and Idaho will continue to experience above normal
fire potential.
Drought is forecasted to persist or worsen over much of the
Southwestern quarter of the Nation with exceptional drought
continuing in California, Western Nevada and a large portion of
the Southern plains.
The Department has nearly 5,000 firefighters and support
personnel to deploy this season. We have three, 3 single engine
air tankers on exclusive use contracts and an additional 38 on
on call when needed contracts. Additionally we have helicopters
and water skippers available.
Appropriations for the 2014 wild land fire budget total 861
million, including 378 million for suppression and FLAME funds.
Drought conditions across the West, changing climate,
invasive species and longer, hotter fire seasons make it a
challenge to plan for and budget for firefighting. What we need
is a long term, sustainable wild land fire budget framework
that recognizes the unpredictability of fire and treats it as
an emergency, like tornadoes and hurricanes.
We greatly appreciate the leadership of Senators Wyden and
Crapo as well as Congressmen Simpson and Schrader and all of
the supporting co-sponsors in putting forth such a sustainable
framework. The 2015 budget proposal for Interior and the Forest
Service models this approach.
The 2015 budget request for the wild land fire management
program is $794 million which will allow the Department of the
Interior to fund ongoing level of normal firefighting, fuels
management, burned area rehabilitation, science and facilities
maintenance. An additional $240 million is requested as the cap
adjustment.
The budget proposal is designed to provide stable funding
for fire suppression while minimizing the adverse impacts of
fire transfers on the budgets of other fire and non-fire
programs as well as reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more
comprehensively and increase the resiliency of public lands in
the communities that border them.
In this proposed new budget framework a portion of the
funding needed for suppression response is funded within the
discretionary spending limits. A portion is funded in an
adjustment to those limits.
For Interior, $268.6 million is requested within the
current budget cap which is 70 percent of the 10-year
suppression average spending. This base level funding ensures
that the cap adjustment will only be used for the most severe
fire activity which constitutes approximately 1 percent of all
fires and 30 percent of the costs. This approach would provide
funding certainty in future years for firefighting costs,
maintain fiscal responsibility by addressing wildfire disaster
needs through agreed upon funding mechanisms and free up
resources to invest in areas that will promote long term forest
and rangeland health and reduce fire risk.
In addition our request does not increase overall
discretionary spending as it would reduce the ceiling for the
existing disaster relief cap adjustment by an equivalent amount
as is provided for wildfire suppression operations.
The request includes a 30 million dollar increase to
establish a new, resilient landscapes activity to improve the
integrity and resilience of forest and range lands by restoring
and maintaining landscapes to specific conditions for fire
resiliency. Treatments will be strategically placed across
landscapes including outside of the wild land urban interface
where ecosystems, structure and function is threatened by
wildfire and other disturbances.
The fuels management program uses a risk based approach
that focuses on 3 strategic issues including the nature and
extent of the fuels problems in terms of risk of wildfire to
key values, determination of treatment and funding priorities
based on those risks and measurement of accomplishment of
program success in terms of reduction of those risks. More
resilient, healthier ecosystems provide many benefits to
society including clean water, scenic and recreation values,
wood products and biodiversity.
Communities are better able to withstand wildfire and
treatments provide safer conditions and more strategic options
for firefighters.
Together with all of our available resources we will
continue to provide a safe, effective wild land fire program.
We will continue to improve effectiveness, cost efficiency,
safety and community and resource protection.
This concludes my statement. Thank you for your interest in
the Department's wild land fire program and for the opportunity
to testify before this committee. I welcome any questions you
may have and appreciate your continued support.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kim Thorsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public
Safety, Resource Protection, and Emergency Services, Department of the
Interior
introduction
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Department
of the Interior's readiness for the 2014 wildland fire season. The U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), along with the Forest Service within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is prepared for the 2014 wildland
fire season with our available resources.
2013 wildfire season
In the 2013 calendar year, nationally, nearly 51,000 fires were
reported and over 4.3 million acres burned, which represents 65 percent
and 59 percent of the 10-year averages, respectively. Alaska led the
nation with 1.3 million acres burned. The Eastern Great Basin burned
the most acres in the lower 48 states consuming nearly 768,000 acres.
Over 2,100 structures were destroyed by wildfires in 2013, below the
annual average of nearly 2,700. California accounted for the highest
number of structures lost.
The available funding before transfers and reprogrammings for
suppression in FY 2013 was $368 million including the FLAME funding.
The DOI obligations in FY 2013 were $399.2 million which required
Section 102 transfers to cover the balance needed. The transfers were
from within the Wildland Fire Management accounts of Fuels,
Preparedness and Burned Area Rehabilitation, as well as other DOI
bureau accounts mainly Construction and Land Acquisition. Repayment of
these impacted bureau resource accounts occurred in FY 2014.
The 2013 fire season was anything but normal when we reflect on the
numbers of lives lost during the season. In total, 34 wildland Federal/
state/local firefighters died in the line of duty. This number, second
only to the fire season of 1910 when 84 firefighters perished, was tied
with 1994, the year in which 14 firefighters died in the South Canyon
Fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado.
Loss of life leaves a mark not only on the families and friends of
the fallen firefighters, but the loss resounds through the entire
wildland fire community. Some particularly tragic fire seasons stand
out in our history and continue to greatly influence the work we do
every day. This calendar year, the wildland firefighting community
commemorated two significant anniversaries that were marked by historic
loss to the interagency wildland fire management community-the
anniversaries of the South Canyon (July 6, 1994) and the Yarnell Hill
(June 30, 2013) incidents.
2014 fire season outlook
The 2014 fire season is expected to be similar to last year's. The
National Wildfire Potential Outlook issued by the Predictive Sevices
Unit at the National Interagency Fire Center for the period of July
through October predicts above-normal fire potential for July over much
of California, the Northwest, and the Great Basin.
In August, we expect California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho will continue to experience above-normal fire potential with the
possibility of above-normal fire activity across the New England states
and the Four Corners area if short-term weather develops that would
support fire outbreaks.
Above-normal fire potential is predicted to remain over Southern
and Central California through September and October; but Northern
California, Oregon, and Washington should return to normal.
The impacts of climate change, cumulative drought effects,
increasing risk in and around communities, and escalating emergency
response requirements continue to impact wildland fire management and
wildfire response operations. Drought is forecasted to persist or
worsen over much of the southwestern quarter of the nation with
exceptional drought continuing in California, western Nevada, and a
large portion of the southern Plains.
Since the beginning of the calendar year, over 30,000 fires have
burned more than 1 million acres, predominantly in the Southern,
Eastern, Southwest, Northern and Southern California, and Alaska
Geographic Areas of the country. The Northwest area has been unusually
active for this time of the year. As of July 8, 2014, numbers of fires
and acres burned represented 70 percent and 37 percent of normal,
respectively.
expected available fire resources
Together with our partners at the U. S. Forest Service, we are well
prepared for the 2014 fire season. The Department plans to deploy over
3,400 firefighters, including 143 smokejumpers, 17 Type-1 crews; 745
engines; more than 200 other pieces of heavy equipment (dozers,
tenders, etc.); and about 1,300 support personnel (incident management
teams, dispatchers, fire cache, etc.); totaling nearly 5,000 personnel.
The Department has been a leader in creating the Veterans to
Wildland Fire program; and where possible, we will continue to
emphasize the hiring of returning Veterans to fill the ranks of its
firefighting forces.
This year, we have 33 single-engine airtankers or SEATS on
exclusive use contracts and an additional 38 on call-when-needed
contracts. SEATs are a good fit for the types of fires that the
Interior agencies experience. Many of these fires usually burn at lower
elevations, in sparser fuels, on flatter terrain. We also have small
and large helicopters and water scoopers available. We will utilize
Forest Service contracted heavy airtankers and, if necessary, Modular
Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) equipped C-130 aircraft from the
Department of Defense. Agreements are in place to acquire supplemental
aircraft from our state and international partners, if necessary.
Appropriations for the 2014 wildland fire budget total $861 million
including $378 million for suppression and the FLAME funds. Recently
the President sent forward a supplemental request for the Forest
Service in the amount of $615 million, which is the difference between
the July FLAME forecast at the upper bound of the 90% confidence
interval ($1.6 billion) and their available suppression appropriation
of $995 million. Interior did not request funding in the supplemental
because the upper bound of the July FLAME forecast 90% confidence
projection is $355 million, which is $23 million below our appropriated
amount. The FLAME projections are based on modeling and may change over
time.
fiscal year 2015 budget
Drought conditions across the west, changing climate, invasive
species, and longer/hotter fire seasons make it a challenge to plan for
and budget for firefighting. What we need is a long term, sustainable
wildland fire budget framework that recognizes the unpredictability of
fire and treats it as an emergency like tornadoes and hurricanes. We
greatly appreciate the leadership of Senator's Wyden and Crapo, as well
as Congressmen Simpson and Schrader, and all of the supporting co-
sponsors, in putting forth a sustainable framework. This legislation
recognizes that we need a better way to budget for wildland fire
management suppression programs, while maintaining accountability and
transparency in spending.
The 2015 budget proposal for Interior and the Forest Service models
this approach. The 2015 budget request for the Wildland Fire Management
Program is $794.0 million, which will allow the Department to fund an
ongoing level of ``normal'' firefighting, fuels management, burned area
rehabilitation, science, and facilities maintenance. An additional
$240.4 million is requested as a cap adjustment.
The budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, to establish a new budget
framework for the Wildland Fire Management program that is designed to
provide stable funding for fire suppression, while minimizing the
adverse impacts of fire transfers on the budgets of other fire and non-
fire programs, as well as reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more
comprehensively, and increase the resiliency of public lands and the
communities that border them.
In this proposed new budget framework, a portion of the funding
needed for suppression response is funded within the discretionary
spending limits, and a portion is funded in an adjustment to those
limits. For Interior, $268.6 million is requested within the current
budget cap which is 70 percent of the 10-year suppression average
spending. This base level funding ensures that the cap adjustment will
only be used for the most severe fire activity which constitutes
approximately one percent of all fires and 30 percent of the costs.
This approach would provide funding certainty in future years for
firefighting costs, maintain fiscal responsibility by addressing
wildfire disaster needs through agreed-upon funding mechanisms and free
up resources to invest in areas that will promote long-term forest
health and reduce fire risk. In addition, our request does not increase
overall discretionary spending, as it would reduce the ceiling for the
existing disaster relief cap adjustment by an equivalent amount as is
provided for wildfire suppression operations.
The 2015 budget request includes a program increase of $34.1
million for Preparedness. The increased funds will enhance Interior's
readiness capabilities by strengthening preparedness capabilities . A
major share of the Preparedness increase will be devoted to
strengthening the BIA wildfire program by, among other things, funding
contract support costs, providing workforce development opportunities
for firefighters, and enhancing administrative support capabilities.
national cohesive wildland fire management strategy
In April, the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and
Agriculture released the National Cohesive Strategy and the National
Action Plan bringing to a close the three-phased, collaborative
approach to evaluate and address the nation's most significant wildland
fire management issues, now and into the future. The goals of the
National Cohesive Strategy are:
Restore and maintain landscapes.--Landscapes across all
jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related disturbances in
accordance with management objectives.
Fire-Adapted communities.--Human populations and
infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life
and property.
Wildfire response.--all jurisdictions participate in making
and implementing safe, effective, efficient risk-based wildfire
management decisions.
The National Cohesive Strategy was developed and will be
implemented in an inclusive process. This is both significant and
distinct from past efforts. The outcome of the cohesive strategy effort
is more than a set of documents; it is a commitment to the doctrine
that as stakeholders, we all share responsibilities for managing our
lands; protecting our nation's natural, tribal, cultural resources; and
making our communities safe and resilient for future generations.
Across the nation, we recognize that the principles of the National
Cohesive Strategy are already being implemented in some places. We need
to continue and strengthen those existing efforts and partnerships that
are working.
Wildland fire management must be an integrated program that works
hand-in-hand with other natural resource, land use, and other program
areas where we can achieve the most difference on the ground, together.
It must be an integrated program that prioritizes efforts where there
is an opportunity to work with our neighbors and partners who are
taking action to collectively make the most difference.
The National Strategy recognizes this need for engagement and
action at all levels, on behalf of Federal, state, local, territorial
and Tribal governments, non-governmental partners, property owners, and
public stakeholders. Our future success will be defined by our
commitment and ability to work together to achieve the vision and goals
of the National Cohesive Strategy; together, we are moving forward with
implementation.
resilient landscapes
The 2015 budget makes pro-active investments in fuels management
and landscape resiliency to better address the growing impact of
wildland fire on communities and the public lands.
The request includes a $30.0 million increase to establish a new
``Resilient Landscapes'' activity to improve the integrity and
resilience of forests and rangelands by restoring and maintaining
landscapes to specific conditions for fire resiliency. Treatments will
be strategically placed within landscapes, including outside of the
wildland-urban interface (WUI) where ecosystem structure and function
is threatened by wildfire and other disturbances.
Examples of treatments that will be conducted include thinning of
overstocked stands in areas with critical wildlife habitat, removing
trees encroaching on meadows or wetlands with significant resource
value, and controlling fire-adapted invasive weeds that degrade
habitat, compete with native vegetation, and increase the risk of
wildfire. Importantly, the Resilient Landscapes activity will be
coordinated with and supported by the resource management programs of
the four Interior bureaus that participate in the Wildland Fire
program. Bureaus will leverage funds to restore and maintain fire
resilient landscapes.
fuels management program
The Department of the Interior's hazardous fuels program has been
redefined as the Department's risk-based Fuels Management Program. The
Fuels Management program uses a risk-based approach that focuses on
three strategic issues, including the nature and extent of the fuels
problem in terms of risk of wildfire to key values, primarily in the
WUI; determination of treatment and funding priorities based on those
risks; and measurement of accomplishment and program success in terms
of reduction of those risks.
The risk-based fuels management program is aligned with the three
goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy to
improve the integrity and resilience of the forests and rangelands,
contribute to community adaptation to fire, and improve our ability to
safely and appropriately respond to wildfire.
More resilient, healthier ecosystems provide many benefits to
society, including clean water, scenic, and recreation values, wood
products, and biodiversity. Communities are better able to withstand
wildfire and treatments provide safer conditions and more strategic
options for firefighters.
We've seen examples where fuels treatments played an important role
in managing the fires. This year a fire break on the border with Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge protected an Alaskan community and helped
firefighters contain the Funny River Fire. Crews working on the San
Juan Fire on the White Mountain Apache Reservation and Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona observed a significant change in
fire behavior when the fire ran into a previous tree thinning project
on the forest, and the crown fire dropped to a slow-moving ground fire,
making the job for firefighters safer and easier to manage.
Last year, during the 2013 California Rim Fire in Yosemite National
Park crews observed a big change in fire behavior due to tree thinning
and prescribed fire work accomplished around several structures and
infrastructure located in the Hodgdon Meadow's area. The time gained by
the reduced fire behavior allowed fire crews to protect NPS and
taxpayer's investments in this developed area with little to no
damaging fire effects and no loss of structures.
Interior has targeted a research effort with the Joint Fire Science
Program to characterize the effectiveness of fuels treatment on
wildland fire behavior, costs, and resilience. Results of these studies
will be incorporated into our Fuels Management Program.
preparedness program
Consistent with the Cohesive Strategy and similar to fuels
management, we are continuing to develop a risk-based framework to
develop and manage the Preparedness Program budget. The risk framework
seeks to align Preparedness investments with fire risk relative to
priority values such as life and property, natural/cultural/economic
resources, and DOI lands in general rather than on historical
allocations. Fire managers will be able to adjust allocations while
considering current capability, return on investments, and workload/
complexity. It will let us be adaptive and make strategic decisions
about placement of wildland firefighting resources with changing
budgets and risk-profiles.
partnerships
The realities of today's challenges at federal, state and other
levels highlights the importance of working together across landscapes,
and with our partners to achieve our goals.
The Federal wildland fire agencies are working with Tribal, state,
and local government partners to prevent and reduce the effects of
large, unwanted fires through preparedness activities like risk
assessment, prevention and mitigation efforts, mutual aid agreements,
firefighter training, acquisition of equipment and aircraft, and
dispatching firefighters, support personnel and equipment; community
assistance and hazardous fuels reduction. These actions demonstrate
Interior's continued commitment to the goals of the National Cohesive
Wildland Fire Management Strategy (restore and maintain resilient
landscapes, create fire-adapted communities, and response to wildfire).
conclusion
Although the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) are offering separate written statements today,
please be assured that our Departments work collaboratively in all
aspects of wildland fire management, along with our other Federal,
Tribal, state and local partners.
Together, with all our available resources, we will continue to
provide a safe, effective wildland fire management program. We will
continue to improve effectiveness, cost efficiency, safety, and
community and resource protection.
This concludes my statement. Thank you for your interest in the
Department's wildland fire management program and for the opportunity
to testify before this Committee. I welcome any questions you may have
and appreciate your continued support.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
For the benefit of the committee members the order after
our questions will be Senator Heller, Senator Baldwin, Senator
Flake, Senator Udall, Senator Barrasso, Senator Heinrich,
Senator Risch.
Let me begin by asking both of you. Critics of the Wyden/
Crapo legislation which the Administration does support, say
that the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act is a blank check or even
a slush fund. How would you respond to those charges and can
you both underscore why you believe their approach is
necessary?
Mr. Tidwell. Madame Chairwoman, I'll start. But first I
need to clarify that in our budget request which merits or
basically follows this proposal. 99 percent of our fires, the
cost of those fires, will still be covered in our
appropriation. It's only that 1 percent that happens to equate
often to about 30 percent of the cost that will be considered
to be funded out of the Emergency Disaster Relief Funds.
So you're still going to have 99 percent of our programs
still going to be part of our appropriation. It's just that 1
percent that will be disasters.
So this proposal what it does it stops fire transfer. It
stops that disruptive practice. It provides a stable funding
source and at the same time it does free up the potential for
us to invest, to do more of the hazardous fuels work and to do
more work to restore the health of our forests.
The Chair. Ms. Thorsen.
Ms. Thorsen. Thank you.
I would totally agree with what Tom has said. In addition
we don't see it as a slush fund of any sort. Any funding that
we receive in Interior and I'm sure in the Forest Service, we
are held accountable for and transparent about.
So this, the funding proposal here, would in no way change
how we are accountable for what we do. We are extremely cost
efficient, always looking for effectiveness on the ground in
firefighting activities, investment of fuels and so forth.
So in no way does this budget proposal, in any way, let us
think that we have an endless amount of funding. We will be
very accountable and very transparent about what we do with
that funding.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
My next question is for you, Ms. Thorsen.
In my visit to Kisatchie, in my many visits to important
sites in my State, I'm very clear that our business and
industry and environmental groups work very well together. I'm
not sure that is the case in other States, but I know that in
Louisiana we have a pretty good coalition together.
We have an umbrella organization called Louisiana
Prescribed Fire Council. Are you aware of this council's work
or something like it? Can you tell us if there are lessons that
you've learned for the cooperative work of this network? Should
it be expanded to other parts of the country?
Are you aware of this coalition?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, I am, actually. It's a group in Louisiana
comprised of landowners, private landowners, NGO's, Federal/
State/local governments, a whole host of folks that conduct
prescribed fire activities and among themselves share all of
that information in the State of Louisiana.
Their group, additionally, brings forth students from the
prescribed fire training center. It's located in Tallahassee,
Florida to the State of Louisiana, to learn about what lessons
learned and those types of things that they do in Louisiana.
That group, then, is also mirrored in the other Southeastern
States.
So each of the States have a Prescribed Fire Council.
The Chair. Chief, let's talk about that because I've only
got a minute.
The Southeast, our region, seems to have a pretty good
model for prescribed burns, if we could get some funding for
it, selling timber which is important for jobs and maintaining
a healthy forest for recreation. I know there are differences
between the Southeast and the Eastern part of the country and
the West. I am understanding that the real emergency is in the
West.
But maybe this could serve as a model. Can you just comment
for 30 seconds or so, on this procedure or policy?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
You've seen the good work that's there done on the
Kisatchie. It's an example of when we're able to use prescribed
fire along with active timber management, we can restore the
conditions of our forest to provide all the benefits, not only
to provide for clean water, clean air, but also the wildlife
habitat and at the same time to produce the wood products that
could come off of that forest.
What we've been able to do throughout the South is to be
able to recognize the importance of active management and
especially the importance of being able to use prescribed fire.
It's something that we're starting to be able to replicate
across the country as more and more people can see the benefits
of being able to manage our forests for multiple use.
The Chair. I think just one of the points to underscore and
the Westerners will agree with me. One of the reasons that it's
working in the South is because the land is privately held. So
the forward leaning of the land owner is really helping this.
What's happening in the West is the landowner is the
Federal Government. It may not be leaning forward enough. So
we've got to kind of explore this and we shall see from what
our Westerners think.
But anyway it was a very interesting comment or review of
this issue.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Just following up on that.
I was out in Soldotna this weekend looking at the aftermath
of the Funny River Fire. This was a fire that, I'm told, burned
an area approximately the size of the city of Seattle. So it
was substantial. A lot of concern about threats to private
property, but the good news is is that most escaped.
But there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the
fire started on refuge land and whether or not there had been
any level of active management. Some folks that felt that their
properties were threatened were really quite agitated about the
concerns that they had raised. We're going to be learning a
little bit more, but you raise a very appropriate question
there, Madame Chairman.
I want to go back to the Chairman's question about the
issue of not giving the Forest Service a blank check, if you
will, when we're talking about this budget cap proposal that is
under discussion today. Chief, I'm not certain that you
actually have these numbers, but getting these numbers is going
to be important to this debate, important to how we find an end
to fire borrowing.
That is how many actual acres of Forest Service lands was
treated in this last fiscal year?
So what I'm looking for is a breakdown for that number. I
think you know the reason why this is important. You were
talking about some big numbers here, expensive wildfires, how
we need to budget differently, including doing more thinning
work and helping reduce the number of these big fires.
So what I would like you to give me are the acres that have
been mechanically treated----
the acres mechanically treated using commercial timber
harvest.
the acres treated with prescribed fires, like the Chairman
has been talking about; and
the acres treated using other tools besides prescribed fire
and mechanical thinning.
I think that would be very helpful for us as a committee as
we try to understand because what I would like to do and where
I think the Chairman is going certainly with our conversations
here. We want to know that if, in fact, we move to a proposal
like the Wyden/Crapo proposal that Forest Service doesn't now
have increased discretion within their budget to go and do
whatever it is that you may hope to do with that.
I would like to see some real active management. I would
like to know, for a fact, that we're going to get some
treatment into our forest lands so that we can work to reduce
that.
So if you could get me those numbers I would appreciate it.
Let me ask, Chief, on the wildfire cap adjustment some have
suggested that the budgeting and requesting 100 percent of the
10-year average isn't working. The suppression costs exceed
these levels. We know that.
Have we looked to whether or not different methods to
determine the budget request might be more accurate? I mean,
are we using the same approach that we always have been and as
a consequence our numbers are all off? Have we looked to
whether or not there are different accounting methods that we
might utilize?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we have looked at different methods.
The concept of a 10-year average has been well accepted when it
comes to budgeting. But the problem we have is that with the
changed conditions and each year it seems like we're having a
more active fire season, that 10-year average often, as has
been pointed out, 8 out of the last 10 years, we've had to
provide supplemental funding.
Senator Murkowski. It doesn't work. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. So the other thing that we do as part of the
FLAME Act, we submit a report to Congress every year. Then we
predict, based on our regression model, what we think the next
fire season is going to be.
But here's the problem. So in FY 2015 as part of our budget
submission, we did run the progression model. It produces a
range somewhere between $770 million to $1.9 billion. Within
that range our scientists are 90 percent confident that the
next year fire season is going to be there.
So as we move forward 8 or 9 months, we'll be able to
shrink that down and be more accurate. But here's our challenge
because we're now talking about the FY 2015 budget to be able
to budget for a situation that's 6 to 8 months out and have
that accuracy that's really needed. That's the challenge that
we have.
Senator Murkowski. So if that's the challenge.
Mr. Tidwell. The regression model is another tool.
Senator Murkowski. Are we looking to other models then?
This is something that perhaps we don't have the answer to, but
if we've acknowledged that this one isn't working it would sure
seem to me that we ought to be, kind of, coming together to see
what it is that might, perhaps, be a better predictor.
We all know that forest fires come and go. In some years
you have really horrible years and others not so much. But we
know that this one is not giving us the year accuracy that we
need.
Madame Chairman, I know we're probably not going to get to
a second round because of votes. But I just want the Chief to
know I'm going to have a whole series of questions for the
record that I would like you to address. Some continue about
the wildfire cap adjustment, but I also have questions as they
relate to aviation for firefighting and our NextGen
firefighters.
I also have a very probing question about the NN float. It
would not be a budget hearing if I did not bring up my
discomfort with what is not going on in NN. I was out there
over the Fourth of July weekend. What you promised me last year
has not been addressed. So I'd like to follow up with you.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Heller and then Senator Baldwin.
Senator Heller. Madame Chair, thank you for this hearing
and for the Ranking Member, I think it's long overdue. I want
to thank our witnesses also for being here today and taking
time from their busy schedule.
States like Nevada and most of us in the Western portions
of this country clearly have a lot of lands that are run by the
Federal Government whether it's BLM, Forest Service, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife. So I think it's critical to hear from Forest
Service today and the Department of Interior to get some
feedback on what we can do appropriately to fight back, push
back, on some of these wildfires.
One of the greatest challenges facing our Western forests
and rangeland, as we've been talking all day, is the severity
and the length of the fire season that we're faced with. Nevada
is one of a handful of Western States that seemingly keeps
enduring record breaking fire devastation year after year. From
2009 to 2013 wild land fires have burned over 1.2 million acres
of Forest Service and BLM administered lands in my State.
In the last 3 years, in particularly, have been
devastating, 424,000 acres in 2011, 613,000 in 2012, 163,000
acres in 2013. So not telling you anything you don't already
know. It's as big of an issue in Nevada as it is everywhere
else.
In fact the Secretary of Agriculture has declared a drought
disaster in all counties in the State of Nevada just as the
other Senator from California had mentioned in her State.
Surprisingly, unsurprisingly, the National Interagency Fire
Center estimates the potential for wild land fires in August
and September will remain high over California, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington and Idaho. I'm assuming that Arizona is part of that
also, Jeff.
Needless to say, multiple fires have already broken out in
the State of Nevada. We just recently had the Hunters Falls
fire burning southwest of Reno at a cost of $800,000. Could
have been much worse, but I think people under your
jurisdiction did a tremendous job and those at BLM and local
firefighters in suppressing that particular fire.
Here's the issue. This week the weather forecast throughout
the week is that we'll have lightning storms throughout the
State. So we all hold our collective breaths. What's going to
happen with multiple lightning strikes day after day after day
after day in States like California and Nevada and the impact
that's going to have?
I think it's clear from the numbers that everybody is
talking about is that the status quo isn't quite working.
I guess the first question I have is how much does it cost
per acre? I don't know if you have this number per acre to
fight a wildfire?
Mr. Tidwell. It all depends on the fire. There's some where
we can quickly get on top of and keep it small to a few acres
that the overall costs is relatively small. I'd be glad to be
able to provide you a range of costs based----
Senator Heller. Does it change from State to State, I mean,
the cost per one State as opposed to another or is it just to
rain and----
Mr. Tidwell. It's to rain and the number of homes is
probably the other thing that really changes the cost. If we're
having to first of all protect homes, communities, from fire.
That drives the strategy it's going to require a lot more
engines.
It's going to justify the use of more equipment. It's just
much more difficult verses if we have an opportunity to put in
a fire line and then just burn out from it. That's a much more
effective. It's less costly.
But there's no question when there's homes involved the
costs go up.
Senator Heller. What about treatment? Is it cheaper to
treat per acre? Fire suppression treatment, is it cheaper per
acre to do that than it is to actually fight a fire?
Mr. Tidwell. There's no question we've analyzed over 100 of
our hazardous or excuse me, a thousand of our hazardous fuel
treatments. In over 90 percent of those treatments have reduced
the severity of the fire behavior so that it's easier for us to
be able to suppress the fire. It's safer, without any question,
for our firefighters.
So we have the data that shows that by making that
investment we can reduce the severity so it's easier to stop
that fire. We're more successful. What's most important, it's
safer for our firefighters to be able to get in there and do
their work.
Senator Heller. I appreciate what the men and women do to
fight fires across this country. I've had close--my son, for
that matter, has fought fires for the Forest Service and BLM
both while he was in college. My brother did, close friends. I
think that's typical college work that you join these crews and
help fight these fires. I really do appreciate their hard work
and effort and what they've done for this country in trying to
reduce the damage that's done by these fires.
I saw a report earlier this month that discussed some of
the highest risk areas near power lines and critical
infrastructure. What are we doing to help relieve some of those
problems? What I guess I'm concerned about is rolling blackouts
in Nevada and California that's potential from burning lines,
critical lines, and perhaps even water, water ways so on and so
forth.
So what are we doing as an agency to protect these critical
and potentially devastating areas that we could avoid?
The Chair. Senator, can I ask? I normally don't do this,
but because we have votes that are going to be called and I
want to get through. Would you answer that in writing, please?
Senator Heller. That would be fine.
The Chair. Because of time.
Senator Heller. That would be fine.
The Chair. Thank you. We'll make sure we get that question.
Excellent question.
Senator Heller. If I may submit more for the record?
The Chair. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Heller. OK.
The Chair. We'll go to Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
I'm really encouraged that the committee is taking a
deliberate look at this critical issue. This is not simply a
budgeting issue because fire borrowing really cripples the
Forest Service's ability to effectively manage our National
Forests. We've talked a little bit about the West and the
South. I want to bring a perspective of the Midwest.
In Wisconsin fire borrowing has contributed to lagging
timber sales and has a cascading impact across the timber
products industry which is a core part of Wisconsin's economy,
especially in the Northern part of the State. Wisconsin needs a
U.S. Forest Service that has the resources available to do its
job and serve our State.
It's why I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Wildfire
Disaster Funding Act because I really feel like we have an
opportunity to get this fix enacted in the supplemental funding
request. I know that on the House side Representative Simpson
has been working hard to make this happen. But I was actually
surprised to learn that Representative Paul Ryan, of my own
State, is opposing this step forward that would allow our
forests to work for our communities once again.
I don't think we should be distracted from the opportunity
that we have to get the fix done this year. Communities in
Wisconsin and across our country are they've been waiting long
enough.
Chief Tidwell, the timber industry is a core part of the
economy in Northern Wisconsin. We had a chance to speak more
directly about that. We have many small, family owned
businesses that are involved in running logging operations and
mills.
I know that the Forest Service timber is, in part, a
supplier to those mills. That having those functioning mills is
essential in a partnership to the Forest Service. It works to
accomplish long-term management goals.
So once the fire borrowing impediment is finally solved and
I do hope it will be very soon. Can we expect annual timber
sales on forests, like the Chequamegon-Nicolet in Northern
Wisconsin, will go up? Can I represent to my constituents that
that would be the case?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, part of our FY 2015 budget proposal
that reflects the adjustments made by the Wildfire Fund
Disaster Act does allow us to request additional money to be
able to do more forest restoration, to be able to treat more
acres and produce more wood and more jobs. Our target goes up
in FY 2015 based on that.
I want to stress that we've been talking about fire. We
need to restore our forests to reduce the threat of fire. But
we also need to restore our forests to reduce the threat of
insect and disease to make sure that they continue to be
healthy and provide that mix of benefits.
So that's the other benefit of this. It's not just for our
fire prone forests. But there's work that needs to be done,
like in your State, to be able to address forest health
concerns and then also to provide additional wildlife habitat.
It's one of the main reasons we do forest harvest in your State
is to provide for wildlife habitat.
So that's just another benefit that would come out from
fixing this problem.
Senator Baldwin. I appreciate that. Given our limited time
I may also be submitting some questions for the record
including how you plan on implementing some of the new tools
that you've been given in the Farm bill relating to insect and
disease and other issues.
One thing I did want to just ask you about, Chief Tidwell,
is your budget has several outcome measures but many output
measures. While it's useful to see output like board feet sold
or miles of stream habitat that's restored, the outcomes of
program work is really what the public cares about and how we
engage them in support of your programs.
A stated goal of your integrated resource restoration
proposal is to create economic opportunities for local
communities. Until fiscal year 2013 your budget tracked a
measure of jobs related to recreation in the National Forests
and Grasslands. I actually think it would be very useful to
have a broader outcome that can demonstrate what the Forest
Service is doing to advance those local economic opportunities
like the many that we have.
I'm wondering if you will work with your staff and my staff
and our committee to create an outcome measure that will help
Congress and the public understand how successful the Forest
Service is at creating and sustaining economic opportunity.
The Chair. A yes or no answer would be good right now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baldwin. A yes answer would be, right?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
The Chair. Yes, that's the one we were hoping. You can give
more information because I really want to ask members to 4
minutes each and we'll get everybody in.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you for the testimony.
We spoke a little earlier about the White Mountain
Stewardship contract, Apache Sitgreaves Forest, that Supervisor
Tenney did a good job of explaining the value of that. We do
have private industry. I think there's been about $130 million
of investment that's gone into that.
Senator Heinrich and I toured Apache Sitgreaves, as you
know, a few months ago and that concern that we have is that
that industry that has developed because of the White Mountain
Stewardship contracting and to much credit goes to the Forest
Service for pushing that forward. But the concern is that it's
going to go fallow now because there's a bit of a gap between
stewardship contracting, the authority ending and the 4 fly
initiative, the second phase, that will involve the Eastern
Forest.
That coming on, Senator McCain and I have been very
concerned about this for a while. We've written to you looking
to see a plan to get some NEPA ready acreage that can be
treated otherwise this industry is going to go away. We've not
yet seen a plan on how to deal with that, how to bridge that
gap.
Can you assure me there is a plan and that Forest Service
is working on that? I know you're aware of the problem.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we are working on bridging that gap.
I'll be glad to share with you the steps we're taking for some
additional projects there. Also we're looking at using the BCAP
authority out of the Farm bill to be able to help subsidize the
costs of some of the biomass that could be moved to the power
plant there that will help that.
But our real problem--and we'll be able to do some things,
to get through the immediate year. But our problem is that if
we're not able to significantly increase the amount of work
that we're doing we're going to keep running into this. That's
what we need to really be talking about is how we can find a
way to move forward and be able to get more work done.
Our budget request does represent it asked for some
additional funding to not only be able to do more hazardous
fuels reduction, but more forest restoration work. So it's
essential that we're able to find some additional capacity to
take advantage of the industry that's now come back into your
State and to make sure that it's going to be there 10 years
from now.
Senator Flake. That's a concern. That we've got it there
now, but I can tell you to try to seek investment to go ahead
and do this again. It's just not going to be there. We'll lose
the gains that we've been able to make.
Talked about the San Juan fire, I think everybody
acknowledges that was a lot less severe.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Flake. In the treated areas. So hope we can move
ahead.
Just one other issue with regard to the Administration's
fire budgeting proposal. Can you tell me how that ensures that
the fire borrowing that's taken money out of fuels reduction
and treatment will actually go to those areas rather than to
some other area like land acquisition or something else?
Is there a guarantee in the President's proposal that the
moneys not bled off to suppression will actually go to
treatment?
Mr. Tidwell. You can see in our FY 2015 request where we
ask for additional funding to do the work in hazardous fuels
and to restore our forests. I think that represents our intent
to be able to pursue the additional flexibility in the budget
constraint to be able to be more proactive, to reinvest in this
work.
I'd be glad to share the numbers with you of the additional
request that we've asked for.
Senator Flake. Just in the 10 seconds I have left. It is a
concern of ours that there's no guarantee that that money will
be spent. We all know that sometimes it's prioritized
elsewhere. That's why in the amendments that we have, FLAME Act
amendments, we ensure that that money goes to treatment.
So, thank you.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
To accommodate everyone Senator Heinrich could go now, then
Senator Risch, then Udall and then Cantwell. Is that OK with
you, Senator Udall?
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chair.
First let me start by saying how much I appreciate the work
that Senators Wyden and Crapo did on this issue. I think their
legislation is probably the most promising, bipartisan solution
that I've seen for, well, since we started seeing this, sort
of, climate induced fire cycle that seems to get worse every
year in both treated and untreated areas. So I think that's
very encouraging.
I want to talk a little bit about the McCain/Barrasso
legislation simply because it would mandate certain levels of
timber production on our national forests in the name of forest
health. First let me say that timber contracts can absolutely
be a useful tool for reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfires and that applies to some areas in my State as well.
But for the bulk of my State we rely much more heavily on
the hazardous fuels reduction program, on stewardship
contracting and on watershed restoration programs. That is, in
part, because many of the forests that we need to thin in New
Mexico are dominated by very small diameter Ponderosa Pine, in
particular, but other mixed conifer species as well that are
simply not economically viable. Either we don't have proximity
access to a market, sometimes for even the large diameter trees
or we don't have access to a biofuel facility like the one that
I toured in Arizona with Senator Flake near the Apache
Sitgreaves.
So we rely very heavily on the collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program, Legacy roads and trails, water
source protection agreements, like the Santa Fe Water Fund.
These have been held back by the uncertainties are created by
fire borrowing. My concern with that legislation is that by
sending that money solely to timber contracting and defunding
these other tools that are working in our forests that we'd
have an even worse fire situation in New Mexico's forest.
I think we need to figure out what tools are working, where
and use them and not one to the complete exclusion of others.
So, I'd simply ask you, Chief, what would the impact on
other forest service programs including watershed restoration
programs be of meeting the timber mandates in Senator
Barrasso's legislation and Senator McCain's legislation?
Mr. Tidwell. We do not have an administrative position on
Senator Barrasso's bill yet. We haven't had a chance to fully
analyze it.
But I will share with you that I have concerns when we
limit, maybe prematurely, as to what tool to use. I would
prefer for us to be able to look at the landscape and then
decide what's the right approach to be able to do that work.
There's no question that we need to do more hazardous fuels
reduction.
There's no question.
I've been on the record for years now about the additional
work we need to do to restore our forests. So I appreciate the
Senator's support to be able to talk about recognizing the need
to do more of that work.
But I'm also concerned about where the funding would come
from and just now as we see what happens every year when we
have to transfer funds. We have to shut down operations. Then
each year as the 10-year average keeps increasing every year.
For instance, since FY 2012 to FY 2015 we had to increase
fire suppression another $156 million. Now with a flat budget,
that's $156 million that has to come out of all the other
programs which a lot of them are the ones that you mentioned.
So I have those concerns.
I recognize the work that we need to get more work done.
Then the other thing, we've made great progress of being able
to set up a system where the public feels that they have the
opportunity to be fully engaged in the work that's done on
their national forests. I'm always concerned if there's
anything that limits that participation that I believe it's a
step backward. It's something that will probably slow down the
progress that we're making.
Where I've testified on Senators Barrasso's Forest bill,
the funding bill that McCain and Barrasso has put forward,
that's the one that we haven't put an administrative proposal
together.
But once again I just want to thank everyone's support for
finding a solution to this issue.
The Chair. Thank you so much.
Senator Risch, Senator Udall and Senator Cantwell and then
we'll close.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Just briefly, I think if you look at the facts there's no
question as to why we're in the situation we're in.
When I started in the State senate in 1975 there were over
40 operating sawmills in Southern Idaho. Idaho is cut in half,
North/South by the Salmon River. I'd been through a lot of
those because I'd been through the forestry school at the
University of Idaho. It amazed me that today there are only two
of those 40 mills left.
Now you can't stop taking that amount of fuel out of the
forest and not cause the problem that we've got.
Now certainly that leads to the problem, but we all know
the weather is a huge factor involved in this. Indeed I'm sure
both of you look at the Interagency Fire Center report every
morning. This is report that comes out of Boise where NFSE is
located.
This year, compared to the other years, we're down quite a
bit. Over the last 4 years--tomorrow at noon we celebrate in
the Intermountain West, halfway through the summer season.
We'll be halfway through July.
So looking at the numbers just to this point.
In 2011 at this point we burned 5.8 million acres.
In 2010, 3.5 million acres.
Last year, two million acres.
This year we're down to a million acres.
So we've actually burned half a million acres less this
year than we have in the last 10 years. On average we're only
about a third because there's about 3 million acres, 3.2
million acres burned every year.
So maybe we're going to be able to catch our breath a
little bit this year. We're under a huge high pressure right
now that's going to cause us a lot of problems with a lot of
heat.
So, I like both McCain/Flake/Barrasso and Wyden/Crapo. I'm
a co-sponsor of Wyden/Crapo.
I'm hoping that we can meld those two bills together. They
both have some things in it that are good things. They focus on
the budgeting nuances that a lot of people in America don't
understand, really don't care about. They just want us to get
the job done.
I'm hoping we can sit down and reconcile those two so we
can get you that bill. You can do what you've committed to do
and that is contained to reduce the fuel load because the fuel
load together with the weather is what causes the problem.
Certainly we're going to have that as time goes forward.
So, with that, thank you, Madame Chairman.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Risch.
We've been joined by Senator Wyden. We'll recognize him as
well at the appropriate time.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Chief, it's good to see you. We've discussed a number of
cases of the air tanker program. I want to, if you will, thank
the Secretary through you for his response to my latest
inquiry.
I'm going to keep pushing the Forest Service and the USDA
on this issue until I'm confident we've got a fleet that we can
be proud of. As you know, air tankers are critical and crucial
for the initial attack. They can keep small fires from becoming
catastrophic.
I've been watching the next generation air tanker program
closely because we can't fight these modern mega fires with
Korean War era aircraft. While I'm pleased to hear that your
report that up to 9 NextGen tankers are available this fire
season I do have a couple follow up questions.
The Secretary's letter indicated that two vendors were on
track to meet their start date of June 2014.
First, did that happen?
Second, I'm concerned that so many tanker vendors have not
fully delivered or have struggled to meet their contract
obligations.
What are your plans to deal with that? What's your plan for
getting more of these NextGen aircraft up in the air?
Mr. Tidwell. We're anticipating by even later today or no
later than next week that all of the vendors, except for one,
will have their aircraft flying. We do have one vendor that
we're going to continue to work with to see if they can provide
that plane. But we have the rest of them or actually have
provided planes and are using those aircraft.
Senator Udall. Let me move to the Defense Authorization
bill of last year. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I
worked very hard to put in place the potential to transfer up
to 7 C-130H aircraft from the Coast Guard to the U.S. Forest
Service.
Can you give us an update on the divested aircraft? Do you
see any potential road blocks?
Mr. Tidwell. I'm going to remain concerned about those
aircraft until I actually see them flying for us.
But the latest information we have is that we expect to
have one of those aircraft probably late next year that we'll
put a MAFFS unit into it. Then the following year, two aircraft
and then the next year, a few more, so it will be FY 2018 when
we actually have all 7 of those that have been fully
retrofitted and flying.
So that's the schedule we're working with. Then we're going
to continue to work with the Air Force to find if there's any
ways that we can accelerate that. But the reality is that those
planes have to line up with the Air Force's need to deal with
their aircraft and definitely understand their priorities.
Senator Udall. I'm going to keep pushing to ensure that
2018 fiscal year, is the latest we see those aircraft. I
appreciate your frank response.
Madame Chair, in the interest of time why don't I stop here
and let other colleagues have a few----
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Udall. Really appreciate your
leadership.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you, Chief
Tidwell.
This is a map of Washington State. You can see by the
yellow and red that almost half of our geographic area is
either in high or very high areas. We have several fires now,
the Mill Canyons Fire and there is an interagency management
team helping. So we greatly appreciate that.
But I think, like so many of my colleagues from Western
States, we're we keep seeing this movie over and over again.
Yes, we're going to see a certain amount right now the
lightning threat does concern us a lot in these areas. But it
goes to the basic question of instead of every year stealing
basically from other resources, isn't there a--I know the Wyden
bill which I support, a management system where we can do some
fuel reductions as part of a biomass program and then use those
generated dollars to then do the urban interface work that we
want to do.
Don't those things go hand in hand?
If you could, since in the interest of time, comment about
your potential use or current use of drones in helping us
identify the magnitude. It's not been that long ago that we had
the 30-mile fire in our State where we lost several lives.
Really understanding what's happening and the current threat
level is very important and so if you could comment on that.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, your first question, our stewardship
contracting is probably our best approach to be able to look at
all the work that needs to be done on the landscape. Then be
able to use the value of the biomass, the timber that needs to
be removed to be able to offset some of the other restoration
work. That's something we're continuing to expand and now close
to over about 30 percent of our work is now being done with
stewardship contracting.
Then the question on drones, it's one of the things we're
looking into to actually use those aircraft to be able to
provide better intelligence. Last year on the Rim Fire in
California through the State and Department of Defense, we were
able to fly a Defense plane that actually helped us pick up
some spots that are outside the line earlier than we would have
picked it up with our infrared flight.
So there's no question that it's a tool that we need to
begin using and we're going to continue to work on that to be
able to find the right way to move forward with it so that it
can provide better information to our firefighters.
Senator Cantwell. Do you need anything else from FAA on
that to move forward?
Mr. Tidwell. We're working with the FAA right now. If we
need anything else I'll let you know.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you so much. Senator Wyden will have the
last word which is appropriate since his bill is how we started
this whole discussion.
Senator.
Senator Wyden. Madame Chair, first of all let me thank you
and Senator Murkowski for all of the efforts that you've made
with me through this Congress, our O and C legislation, which,
of course, is a huge priority, the fire issue. You and Senator
Murkowski have just been terrific.
I'm sorry I couldn't be here. We had a major hearing with
respect to the transformation of the Medicare program which
we've got to do to protect the Medicare guarantee and contain
costs or else we're not going to have money for anything else.
So I very much appreciate your leadership there.
To have Chief Tidwell, in particular, I think when people
write history of forestry, they're going to talk about
collaborative forestry. They're going to say, Chief Tidwell was
the one who really put the points on the board for that kind of
effort.
Chief, I was just in John Day watching them out here
lumber. They have a boarding house close by now that has gotten
off the ground because they have the certainty and
predictability. You gave them the grocery stores selling
groceries that economic multiplier that you envisioned for
rural areas is in place. So very much appreciate that.
Thank you all also for the help with respect to the
firefighting effort.
Madame Chair, I would just only say that I very much want
to work with you, with Senator Murkowski. I saw Senator Flake
as we were passing through. Senator Crapo and I are very
interested in working with all of you in a bipartisan way to
pin this down.
I think everyone who looks at the challenge and Senator
Murkowski and I talked about it a number of times over the
years, knows that the Prevention Fund is getting shorted. When
the Prevention Fund gets shorted things tend to go haywire in a
hurry because you basically have a forest, a resource that's a
magnet for fire. Then you have a lightning strike or something.
All of a sudden you have an inferno on your hands.
As colleagues have described apparently in my absence what
happens is you've got the inferno. You've got to put it out.
You borrow from the Prevention Fund and the problem gets worse.
But I think there's a lot of good will here with the
Senators to try to work this out. With your leadership and
Madame Chair, with all that you've got on your plate, to have
given us all this time and staff time to work on the forestry
issues, wildfire and O and C, I couldn't ask for more.
I said, when I had the honor of chairing the Finance
Committee, that things would be in very good hands with Chair
Landrieu and Senator Murkowski. I'll tell you, I think this
issue shows that once again. So I really look forward to
working with the two of you and under your leadership.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden, for those
kind words and encouraging words. We're looking forward to
tackling this issue and finding a solution and doing it as
quickly as we can. This is very, very important to the Nation
and to many, many members of this committee.
The record will stay open for 2 weeks. There will be
additional questions in writing to both of you.
Thank you for your time this morning. But you should expect
some additional questions as we try to forge a compromise to
solve this problem.
Senator Murkowski. Madame Chairman, just on that and
recognizing that you have given all members the courtesy of an
additional 2 weeks, I would just ask the Chief and the
Department of Interior to try to respond to us as quickly to
these QFRs as possible. We do need to get some of these
substantive responses to the particulars in order to better
craft a solution that is going to work, not only for this
year's fire season, but going forward.
I ask for prompt responses to the inquiries from all the
members.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Kim Thorsen to Questions From Senator Manchin
Question 1. What do you think about S.2593/does your agency have a
position on S.2593?
Answer. The Administration has not taken a position on S. 2593,
``The FLAME Act Amendments Act of 2014.''
Question 2. What do you think would be the impacts on your agency
if S.2593 were enacted into law?
Answer. The Administration has not taken a position on the bill and
the analysis of impacts has not been completed.
Question 3. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of
S.1875 as compared to relevant sections in S.2593?
Answer. As stated above, the Administration has not taken a
position on the bill; however as shared in my testimony, some of the
advantages of S.1875 and the President's budget are:
Establishment of a new framework for funding fire
suppression operations in the Department of the Interior and
the U.S. Forest Service that will provide stable funding for
fire suppression, while minimizing the adverse impacts of fire
transfers on the budgets of other fire and non-fire programs.
Such a framework allows for a balanced suppression and pro-
active fuels management and restoration program, with
flexibility to accommodate peak fire seasons but not at the
cost of other Interior missions or by adding to the deficit;
and
The cap adjustment does not increase overall discretionary
spending, as it would reduce the authority ceiling for the
existing disaster relief cap adjustment by the amount required
for fire suppression requirements.
Though we always assure adequate funds for firefighting and timely
availability, this approach will be more transparent and will prevent
the need to disrupt other fire activities and non-fire programs. Under
this approach, we will not have to divert funds from important programs
to pay for fire costs.
Question 4. Do you have any comments on the statement (in S 2593):
``... existing budget mechanisms for estimating the costs of wildfire
suppression are not keeping pace with the actual costs for wildfire
suppression due in part to improper budget estimation methodology.''
Answer. Researchers from USDA Forest Service Research and
Development have been providing suppression obligation forecasts for
nearly 20 years. Standard regression techniques and accepted
statistical methodologies are used. The researchers select variables
which include previous research, previous forecasts, and new data
series.
The FY 2015 President's Budget proposes using the FLAME Outyear
Forecast to estimate wildland fire suppression funding needs. The
methodology used in the FLAME Outyear Forecast is the best projection
available. These forecasts are completed using lagged values of data
which is a common formulation in economic forecasting and identifies a
consistent signal between current and lagged expenditures. Explicit
forecasts of drought, climate and weather variables are not available
at more than six to nine months ahead, so forecasts are difficult
unless lagged values are used.
The ten-year average of suppression obligations is a reasonably
good tool for estimating a normal year. However, we are increasingly
experiencing years of abnormally high fire activity, which challenge
our ability to budget for wildfire suppression costs. The President's
Budget seeks to address this challenge by budgeting for wildfire
suppression in a manner similar to how the Federal Government budgets
for other natural disasters which are also difficult to predict. The
President's Budget amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act to add an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits
for wildfire suppression operations. The cap adjustment is intended to
give flexibility to respond to severe, complex, and threatening fire or
a severe fire season that is not captured in the historical averages.
This new approach for budgeting for wildfire suppression costs will
eliminate the need to transfer funds from other fire and non-fire
programs and as well as the adverse impact from deferred investment in
those programs.
Question 5. In your opinion is there a way to improve upon using
the 10 year historical fire suppression average as a methodology and,
if yes, what might that be? Have you worked on beta-models of
statistical regression models that may take the place of the 10 year
average? If yes, has this shown any promise to be used--even in
combination--with historical rates of expenditures to estimate out-year
budget needs for fire suppression?
Answer. Building on the answer provided in question #4, the FY 2015
President's Budget proposes using the FLAME Outyear Forecast to
calculate the amount anticipated for wildland fire suppression
activities. The outyear forecast is prepared annually by researchers
from the USDA Forest Service Research and Development. The researchers
believe this methodology is the best projection available. These
forecasts are completed using lagged values of data which is a common
formulation in economic forecasting and identifies a consistent signal
between current and lagged expenditures. Explicit forecasts of drought,
climate and weather variables are not available at more than six to
nine months ahead, so forecasts are difficult unless lagged values are
used. These methodologies are reasonable solutions for these forecasts
and use standard modeling accepted for these kinds of forecasts.
The ten-year average is a reasonably good method of estimating
suppression cost in an average year, and a stable estimate for budget
formulation in outyears until we can incorporate factors such as
drought, climate and weather into forecasts. The Administration's
proposal, and S. 1875, propose a new budget framework, where a portion
of the funding needed for suppression response is funded within the
discretionary spending limits, and a portion is funded through the
proposed amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985. The proposal is designed to provide stable funding for
wildfire suppression, even with uncertainty in the severity and costs
of fire seasons, while minimizing the adverse impact of fire transfers
on the budgets of other fire and non-fire programs. The cap adjustment
will be used for the most severe fire activity which constitutes
approximately one percent of all fires and results in 30 percent of the
overall costs.
The use of the ten-year average of fire suppression costs for
budget formulation, updated with forecast models of cost predictions,
and a budget framework that provides certainty of funding while
limiting impact to other programs, is a reasonable and responsible
approach to addressing the catastrophic and unpredictable nature of
wildland fires.
Question 6. Under one scenario in S.2593 it may be possible that
approximately $1 billion more would be used for fire suppression costs
and forest management activities, as compared to either the
administration proposal or S. 1875. Could you please give us an overall
idea what the possible effects of this might be?
Answer. The Administration has not taken a position on the bill nor
completed an analysis of the bill, however, as provided in my
statement, the Administration's proposal and S. 1875 propose a new
budget framework, where a portion of the funding needed for suppression
response is funded within the discretionary spending limits, and a
portion is funded through the proposed amendment to the Balance Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The proposal is designed to
provide stable funding for wildfire suppression, while minimizing the
adverse impact of fire transfers on the budgets of other fire and non-
fire programs. The cap adjustment will be used for the most severe fire
activity which constitutes approximately one percent of all fires and
results in 30 percent of the overall costs. In FY 2015 for the DOI, the
cap level requested is $240.4 million.
Responses of Kim Thorsen to Questions From Senator Heller
News reports earlier this month that discussed that some of the
highest risks near power lines and critical infrastructure put some of
our Northern Nevada communities and the neighboring communities in
California at-risk for rolling blackouts.
Question 1. What are your agencies doing to proactively mitigate
the risk to critical infrastructure?
Answer. In our allocation decisions, critical infrastructure,
including major power lines, has been and will continue to be a key
value we use to determine the scope of the fuels problem and aids in
determining where priority work should be accomplished. Because
critical infrastructure informs allocation decisions, DOI agencies are
expected to prioritize these values in their program of work.
Question 2. Can the agency mobilize fuel reduction quickly and
proactively to treat high-risk areas where a fire could threaten rural
communities or critical infrastructure, like power lines or our water
delivery infrastructure?
Answer. The fuels program does not have an unlimited capacity to
treat the vast amount of expanding wildland-urban interface, critical
infrastructure, and other high-risk areas across federal and tribal
lands, but fuels program funds are allocated to best protect high
valued assets in highest risk areas.
It should also be noted that scientific studies such as one
recently published by the Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI)
suggest that focusing fuels treatments on the wildland-urban interface
and critical infrastructure alone will not resolve the occurrence of
large catastrophic wildfires that threaten these key values. ERI's
publication suggests that although hazardous fuels treatments near
communities can reduce wildfire risks to home and people, backcountry
fuels treatments are equally important to prevent the ``mega''
wildfires that most often start on federal lands and eventually burn
onto state and private lands. The Department recognizes this as an
issue and has, therefore, proactively proposed a new approach that
complements the existing fuels management program.
The proposed new Resilient Landscapes Program in the 2015 DOI
Wildland Fire Management budget is purposed toward making significant
short-and long-term investments that result in fire resilient
landscapes by focusing funding for Resilient Landscape Collaboratives.
These Collaboratives invest and leverage Wildland Fire Management
funding with other natural resource funding in order to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from wildfire by expanding our fire resilient
landscapes and better addressing the growing impact of wildfire effects
on communities, critical infrastructure and federal lands.
Question 3. As you know, the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Agency is
under a court order to make a listing determination on the Greater
Sage-Grouse under the ESA by Sept. 2015. The responsibility of the
health of Nevada's sagebrush ecosystem and rangeland-the critical
habitat of the Greater sage-grouse-falls almost entirely on the federal
land managers that control over 85% of the land in Nevada. While I
understand the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service are in the process of
making Resource Management Plan amendments to address threats to
habitat, such as wildfire, I fear the further restriction of multiple-
use of public lands instead of successfully dealing with wildfire,
invasive species, predators, and other threats will not be sufficient
to prevent a threatened or endangered listing of the sage-grouse under
the Endangered Species Act.
How can we spur faster fuel reduction on lands identified as
priority habitat for the sage-grouse? Not enough is being done to truly
address wildfire threats to habitat and a listing of the sage-grouse
will devastate the rural communities in my state.
Answer. We share your concerns about the potential listing of the
greater sage grouse. Invasive grasses, encroachment of pinion-juniper,
drought, wildfires, and BLM's management decisions are likely to
influence the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Department
is working with other federal agencies, local and state governments,
tribes, partners and stakeholders to take a collaborative approach to
reduce wildfire risks in greater sage grouse habitat.
The greater sage grouse is considered a natural resource value we
use to determine the scope of the fuels problem and aids in determining
where priority work should be accomplished. Because natural resource
values inform allocation decisions, DOI agencies are expected to
prioritize these values in their program of work. The funding allocated
for treatment of these 240,000 acres represents over 61% of the BLM's
fuels allocation for this fiscal year.
Funding the Resilient Landscapes program as a new approach to
complement the on-going work in the fuels program is essential to the
Department's success in protecting critical habitat for the greater
sage grouse. The Resilient Landscapes Program is purposed towards
making significant short-and long-term investments that result in fire
resilient landscapes by focusing funding for Resilient Landscape
Collaboratives. These Resilient Landscape Collaboratives are likely to
include other federal, state, NGO, and stakeholder partnerships.
Resilient Landscape Collaboratives invest and leverage Wildland Fire
Management funding with other natural resource funding in order to
prepare for, respond to, and recover from wildfire. By expanding our
fire resilient landscapes and better addressing the growing impact of
wildfire effects on communities, we will lessen the risk of wildfire to
critical infrastructure and federal lands.
Responses of Kim Thorsen to Questions From Senator Flake
Question 1. In your testimony, you claim that the administration's
wildfire budget proposal would ``free up resources to invest in areas
that will promote long-term forest health and reduce fire risk .'' Yet,
at least one senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee has
indicated that the freeing up these resources will allow the Committee
to use those extra resources to fund ``the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, resource conservation and energy permitting.'' What guarantees
are there in the administration's proposal that the Appropriations
Committee would direct the resources that are ``freed up'' by the
proposal to address hazardous fuel reduction?
Answer. The Administration cannot predict the decisions of the
Appropriations Committee in its appropriations bill, but the
President's Budget does direct much of the ``freed up'' suppression
funding to programs that promote long-term forest heath and reduce fire
risk. By proposing to fund 70 percent, rather than 100 percent, of the
10-year suppression average within the discretionary budget caps, the
President's Budget makes $115.1 million available for other purposes
and invests a good share of this in the broader Wildland Fire
Management program. For example, a program increase of $34.1 million in
the Preparedness program would enhance Interior's readiness
capabilities by strengthening BIA's wildfire program, funding contract
support costs, and providing workforce development opportunities for
firefighters, among other things. The President's Budget proposal also
includes $30 million for a new program, Resilient Landscapes, intended
to assist in the implementation of the National Cohesive Strategy goals
by improving the integrity and resilience of forests and rangeland by
restoring and maintaining landscapes to specific conditions for fire
resiliency. A $2.0 million increase requested for the Burned Area
Rehabilitation program would be invested in areas where recovery of
fire-damaged lands is required. This includes areas where wildfire has
impacted critical habitat throughout the western states such as the
greater sage grouse habitat in the Great Basin.
Question 2. In your testimony, you state, ``This base level funding
ensures that the cap adjustment will only be used for the most severe
fire activity which constitutes approximately one percent of all fires
and 30 percent of the costs.'' Is it your understanding that this 30
percent cap adjustment would continue to apply, even if the
administration's proposal allows it to reduce fire suppression costs
through proactive hazardous fuels reduction work?
Answer. Yes, the cap adjustment based on the FLAME Outyear Forecast
would continue as outlined in the amendment to the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Use of the funds over time may
not be required as proactive fuels management work is completed.
However, the beneficial effect of this type of work is longer term and
it would be premature to assume short term results or corresponding
financial savings.
Question 3. Will the Department commit to working with Senators
McCain, Barrasso, and myself on resolving this devastating fire
borrowing problem, more accurately funding wildfire suppression, and
committing resources to proactive forest restoration?
Answer. The Department is committed to working with the Congress to
collaboratively address the issues associated with a resolution to
adequately fund the high priority programs of wildland fire suppression
and fuels management.
Question 4. Will the Secretary of the Interior commit to appearing
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to discuss the
Department's FY15 budget request before the beginning of the next
fiscal year?
Answer. The Secretary and the Department are committed to working
with the Committee to discuss all appropriate issues.
______
Responses of Ken Pimlott to Questions From Senator Manchin
Question 1. What do think it may take to really get a handle on the
massive issues facing forests across your State? You highlight the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act and S. 1875 (Wyden-Crapo) as two
important things. Do you have any other recommendations?
Answer. The situation facing forested lands in California is
growing increasingly dire. The current drought is exacerbating
conditions in forested landscapes already stressed by disease and
insects, encroached upon by development, and suffering from declining
active forest management over time. Fire seasons across the West are
lasting over 70 days longer than they did just 30 to 40 years ago and
in California, there has been a drastic increase in the occurrence of
large, damaging fires with over half of the state's largest fires in
recorded history occurring just since 2002.
In recognition of the need to improve the health of the forested
lands in the State, there have been a number of programmatic
developments, as well as funding increases at the State level. In this
most recent year, there is over $40 million of investments in improving
the health of the State's forests from the proceeds of the California
cap-and-trade auctions. This funding is for a range of programs
including assistance for land owners with fuel reduction and other
forest health activities. This is in addition to the over $25 million
for fire prevention that will be invested in 2014-15. The State's 2010
strategic fire plan guides all of the State's activities in these
areas, and the State is now playing a more active role in local land
use planning.
However, no one entity can address this problem alone. A stable
funding source-as would be achieved through S. 1875-is critical to not
only appropriately funding the fire suppression efforts but also to
ensuring that the other critical forest health programs are supported.
Once these efforts are fully funded, it will be possible for the State
to further partner with the Federal land management agencies on
projects and facilities that support all of our land management
objectives. For example, the State could provide support for small,
disbursed biomass facilities that could process fuel treatment residue
from both State and Federal projects.
Longer term, I would urge the Federal agencies to engage in more
active forest management as is appropriate to the agency's mission.
This could be through the removal of dead or dying trees, active
replanting after large-scale fires, or through harvesting of timber to
encourage forest health.
Question 2. Do you have an opinion on the possible prioritization
of fire-fighting and forest fuels reduction activities, possibly at the
expense of other programs that the Forest Service and DOI agencies
undertake?
Answer. CAL FIRE is the agency that is responsible for not only
providing fire suppression and prevention on 31 million acres of the
State, but also for regulating timber operations in the State. As both
a fire chief, and the State Forester, I am keenly aware of the
tradeoffs that must be made in fiscally challenging times. Each agency
must make fiscal decisions based upon their priorities and the
priorities of their stakeholders, and as such, I would not want to
speak to the prioritization within other agencies' budgets.
However, at a high level, and based upon my experience in
California, I know that many of the programs in land management
agencies contribute to the overall health of the landscape. Even in the
toughest of fiscal situations that the State has faced, I worked to
protect-to the extent possible-these other programs in my Department.
______
Responses of David Porter Tenney to Questions From Senator Manchin
Question 1. Do you have an opinion on the possible prioritization
of fire-fighting and forest fuels reduction activities, possibly at the
expense of other programs that the Forest Service and DOI agencies
undertake?
Answer. There are 3 parts to this answer:
I. From a practical perspective, there is little choice but
to give fire suppression activities top priority. Catastrophic
landscape scale fires can, and often do, create life
threatening situations, and routinely cause private and public
property damages costing hundreds of $ million. Further, in
addition to destroying the vegetation, uncharacteristically hot
crown fires often damage or destroy the soils. As a
consequence, in the dry climates of the Southwest, forestry re-
vegetative cycles can literally extend into centuries as new
soil must be formed over decades or centuries before mature
forests can regrow over additional decades or centuries.
Alternatively, the combination of fire destructions and long
term droughts may altogether cause a permanent shift away from
forested ecosystems toward ecologically less productive
chaparral or shrublands. The current destruction of the forests
of the inner West by catastrophic fires has the potential to be
literally life-changing for the culture, economy and customs of
the West and the nation. However, because catastrophic
landscape scale fires are not natural events from an ecological
perspective, fire suppression should be funded using a process
similar to the funding required during and after other national
disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes. The current
process of ``fire borrowing'' wreaks havoc on the Forest
Service budgeting and prioritization processes. Not only is it
unsustainable, but it is unpredictable from the budgetary and
operational perspectives. The use of a reliable predictive
forecast tool such as the FLAME regression model appears highly
advisable.
II. As soon as fire suppression costs can be funded for what
they are: emergency national responses to national catastrophic
events, fuel reduction activities must become the absolute
budgetary and operational priorities of the Forest Service for
at least the next few decades. Stewardship of the resource
implies the continuation in existence of the resource. While
cool ground fires are a natural process that must be
reintroduced to the benefit of the national forests, the
conditions created by decades of misguided indistinct fire
prevention policies that have resulted in unacceptable
catastrophic fire risks through the accumulation of fuel, must
be addressed. A clear and present danger exists that must be
urgently contained. This priority takes precedence, temporarily
at least, over other multiple-use foci. Precious little
multiple uses can be enjoyed or benefited from, for decades,
after catastrophic landscape scale crown fires destroy
ecosystems, biodiversity, watersheds and natural resources.
While this focus on funding fuel reduction activities cannot be
exclusive, it certainly must be highly prioritized and
disproportionately funded accordingly. Considering the high
return on dollars invested in forest restoration in terms of
dollars not subsequently expended on fire suppression, it
appears advisable to invest urgently and substantially in
preventive fuel reduction activities at a rate of $1 in
prevention treatments for every $2 expended in fire suppression
for the next two decades, and possibly longer, until the
forests of the West are returned to their original natural fire
resistant structure, and landscape scale catastrophic fires are
the exception rather than the norm.
III. While the debate over which programs to defund in order
to fund fuel reduction activities is certain to raise deep
societal questions, it seems that the Forest Service, DOA and
DOI could benefit from adopting best practices from the market
economy. Specifically, it is a rare occurrence indeed for the
Forest Service to terminate an unsuccessful project. This may
result from a statistically uncommonly high success rate for
the Forest Service projects (?), or possibly from a reluctance
to recognize failure and act accordingly. This violates one of
the most fundamental principles of successful private
enterprise, which is to ``feed success and starve failure.''
Simply put, projects within all programs that do not deliver on
measurable commitments made when funding was / is applied for
and granted, must be re-evaluated and, if appropriate,
defunded. This concept applies to all projects for all
programs, including often high profile collaborative projects
heralded as successes but scarce on actual measurable delivery.
Unsuccessful projects' funding can then be redirected toward
successful projects that deliver based on objective measured
criteria. For example, when evaluating forest restoration, the
baseline criteria to define success may not be acres
``analyzed,'' ``planned,'' or ``awarded,'' etc. but quite
prosaically: acres actually ``treated.''
Reducing waste and inefficiencies may actually go a long way toward
funding effective fuel reduction activities, while avoiding difficult,
and possibly unnecessary, societal choices at programs level.
Question 2. The White Mountain Stewardship contract, as I
understand it, has used a Multi-Party Monitoring Board. It includes a
diverse group of stakeholders. What is your take on how well this has
worked? What lessons can be learned and how might they be applied to
similar types of efforts on other national forests?
Answer. Navajo County has been deeply involved in the White
Mountain Stewardship contract Multi-Party Monitoring Board over the
last decade. Simply stated, the Multi-Party Monitoring Board may prove
itself to be one of the most effective and efficient accountability
mechanisms pioneered by the White Mountain Stewardship contract. This
statement must, however, be qualified by the observation that the
successive Supervisors of the Apache / Sitgreaves National Forest
(Elaine Zieroth, Chris Knopp, Jim Zornes) have not only accepted but
embraced the concepts of meaningful collaboration and public
accountability. This may not reflect a universal trend among the line
officers of the Forest Service.
Lessons learned from the White Mountain Stewardship contract Multi-
Party Monitoring Board include the observation that such mechanism
benefits both the Forest Service and the community, and the
recommendations that the mechanism must be not only widely implemented
but actually reinforced.
Without compromising the sole decision-making authority of the
agency, one can envision the institutionalization of the Multi-Party
Monitoring Boards influence in the content of the Forest Service
decisions, in lieu of the reliance on the willingness of the line
officers to allow, or not, such influence.
Honoring the product of the collaborative work is a fundamental
driver of effective long-term collaboration. Such honoring is currently
left to the appreciation of individual line officers' perspectives. It
needs to be codified.
Meaningful monitoring is a fundamental part of adaptive management,
and collaborative work is a prerequisite to social license for the
implementation of large scale projects. Integrating the collaborative
products, such as objectively appropriate recommendations of Multi-
Party Monitoring Boards must become the regulated rule rather than the
exception.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing was sent to press:]
Question for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. Chief Tidwell, as the charts here demonstrate, and you
mention in your testimony, today over 40 percent of your budget is
devoted to wildland fire management. This is a dramatic increase from
13 percent of your budget in 1991. Can you walk us through how the fire
budgeting situation constrains your abilities to tend to all the many
other parts of your multiple use mission? For example, in the past five
years, what resources have you had to move from other areas of your
mission to accommodate the increase in wildfire management?
As a follow-up, can you describe to us the impact on the mission of
your Agency should the Forest Service and DOI be legislatively directed
to provide up to an additional $1 billion in fire management funding
from within you existing budgets?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Johnson
Question 1. The 2014 Farm Bill contains several provisions designed
to improve the ability of the Forest Service and private forest land
owners to respond to changing conditions and streamline treatment and
restoration. These include the Good Neighbor authority, designated
insect and disease treatment areas that was piloted in the Black Hills,
and the permanent reauthorization of stewardship contracting. Several
of these tools have not yet been implemented on a broad scale, so their
full effect cannot be completely known. However, the Forest Service has
now had several months to plan for their use. Recognizing this, please
respond to the following questions:
What are the Forest Service's plans for utilizing these
tools?
In what ways will they be leveraged to address forest health
issues and limit the potential for destructive wildfire?
How does the Forest Service anticipate that the tools can be
used improve the timing and flow of forest products to users of
those products?
When are the tools likely to be made fully available to
local forest managers?
How will the availability of the tools influence the annual
goals established for treatment and harvest?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Stabenow
Funding Impacts
The Great Lakes States are home to a number of National Forests
that support tourism and recreation. While States like Michigan do not
suffer from catastrophic fires, the Forest Service's reliance on fire
borrowing often reduces the available funds to complete basic
restoration and forest health maintenance work necessary to keeping
these forests healthy.
Question 1. How much money has been diverted from Region 9 to go
towards fire suppression in the last ten years? How much of that money
would have gone to the Hiawatha, Huron-Manistee, and Ottawa National
Forests?
How much money gets diverted from programs that would have
benefited Great Lakes States?
Do you anticipate transferring funds again from Region 9 this year?
Timber and Forest Products
Timber and forest products are a large component of the local
economy and livelihood in Michigan, especially in Northern Michigan and
the Upper Peninsula. As such, it is vital that the Forest Service is
being as efficient as possible when it comes to programs and funds that
go towards the treating, marking, and selling of timber.
Question 2. What impact does fire borrowing have on the timber and
forest products industry across the Nation? What would the increase be
in timber, logging, and forest products, if fire borrowing was not
occurring in Region 9?
Farm Bill
The 2014 Farm Bill expands a number of authorities in the Forestry
Title such as creating permanent Stewardship Contracting, Nation-wide
Good Neighbor Authority, and modified Healthy Forest Reserve Program
(HFRA). These changes should allow the Forest Service to more
efficiently and effectively target restoration; mitigation and
suppression work in the National Forest System. However, without
significant reform to the Forest Service's wildfire budget the
effectiveness of these programs will be offset by reduced projects and
activities as funds and man power get diverted to fire suppression
needs.
Question 3. Can you describe how a lack of action to reform fire
suppression budgets could impact the great work we achieved in the 2014
Farm Bill?
Fire Prevention
Current and forecasted climatic conditions and demographic trends
indicate that wildfire challenges will continue to increase in the
coming years. Changes in climate are exacerbating the wildland fire
problem as our forests become dryer and subject to longer and more
frequent fire seasons.
Question 4. What types of forest restoration and forest health work
needs to be completed to reduce the conditions that lead to
catastrophic wildfires?
How does fire borrowing keep you from being able to complete these
types of activities?
Restoration
We have seen a lot of success in Western states utilizing the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CLFR) to address
restoration projects that leverage local resources with national and
private resources. However, we have not seen this type of success
replicated in the Great Lakes states.
Question 5. Does the Forest Service plan on expanding CLFR criteria
to make the Great Lakes States more competitive in this application
process?
Integrated Resource Restoration
Currently Region 9 is not part of the Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) program. IRR offers the Forest Service the
flexibility to prioritize and implement restoration projects with an
increased efficiency and effectiveness by allowing multiple activities
to be scheduled in a single field season. I understand that the
President's FY2015 budget seeks to expand this program to all Forest
Service regions.
Question 6. Can you address the lessons the Forest Service has
learned from the pilot programs in Regions 1, 3, and 4? How do you
foresee the IRR program aiding Michigan and the Great Lakes if it was
extended to include Region 9?
Question for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Udall
Question 1. We have communicated many times about the need to
accelerate the pace of restoration of our national forests and the role
that a diverse forest products industry can play. My state is home to a
diverse timber industry that includes small specialty mills in places
like Kremmling, Mancos, and Saguache, a cutting-edge five-megawatt
biomass energy facility in Gypsum, and a traditional sawmill in
Montrose. Your proposed budget calls for a 19 percent increase in
timber sales. Can you please report on how this increase can be applied
to support forest management and jobs in my state in FY 15, and whether
the U.S. Forest Service will scale it in a manner that can help all of
those diverse small businesses in my state?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Manchin
FY 2015 Budget
Question 1. What do you consider to be the top three challenges
that came out of your FY 15 budget planning process? In your FY 15
budget request you say that ``the sheer scale of the challenges is
daunting.'' One example, from your testimony, is that the Forest
Service manages 58 million acres with a high, or very high, potential
for a large wildfire which would be difficult for suppression resources
to contain.
a. How would you propose to mitigate any or all of the wildfire
risks on these acres, especially in a budget constrained environment?
b. How much would it cost to simply treat the 58 million acres?
c. How do you prioritize those acres to treat?
d. How do you see this playing out in West Virginia?
Question 2. What do you consider to be the top three opportunities
that came out of your FY 15 budget planning process?
a. How would you propose to capitalize on them?
b. How do you see this playing out in West Virginia?
Restoring resilient landscapes:
Question 3. Restoring resilient landscapes is one of three focal
areas you mention in your FY 15 budget request, along with building
thriving communities, and managing wildland fires. Nearly all of the
Monongahela has been designated as a forest in declining health; the
Forest Service has designated 45 million acres of the National Forest
System in response to requests from governors whose states are
experiencing, or are at risk of, an insect or disease epidemic:
a. Can you explain in layman's terms what restoring resilient
landscapes is?
b.How might you recommend restoring these landscapes?
c.The Farm Bill repealed the pre-decisional appeals process and the
use of categorical exclusions in certain circumstances. What more might
be done to help ensure that the agency can tackle such a vast forest
health issue? Would you support greater use of categorical exclusions
or any other mechanisms that may help expedite the timeliness of
crucial on-the- ground forest restoration activities?
d. Please provide specific forest restoration activities that have
been done or are planned on the Monongahela National Forest.
Invasive species, insect and disease threats
Question 4. Invasive species are a big issue in West Virginia and
across the nation. Please describe what specifically the Forest Service
is proposing to do in the FY15 budget request to help alleviate what is
seemingly a worse problem every year? What more can be done?
Question 5. Insect and disease threats. I would like to hear about
the implementation of actions to address insect and disease threats and
help restore healthy forests under Section 602 of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003 as added by section 8204 of the Agriculture Act
of 2014. I also would like to understand how implementation may proceed
in relation to Section 8006, which relates to Forest Service decision
making and the appeals process. As you know, excluding wilderness
areas, the entire Monongahela National Forest has been designated as a
landscape-scale insect and disease area. This will allow the Forest
Service to evaluate and potentially treat the forest for insects and
diseases. As you also know, the Monongahela has quite a bit of timber
that could be harvested in accordance with the allowable sale quantity
(ASQ). The trend, though, beginning in the mid-1990's has been to
harvest significantly below than what your models show could be cut,
somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of the ASQ. A greater harvest
level, through restoration activities, would then help make the forest
healthier and be good for jobs in West Virginia.
a. What is your plan for implementation of the lands designated
under section 602 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act on the
Monongahela?
b. How might this intersect with the FY 2015 budget request?
c. What are the agencies' plans for implementation of these
measures across all lands managed by the Forest Service?
d. What do you see as impediments to beginning able to begin
addressing the sizable insect and disease issues on the Monongahela?
Biomass
Question 6. Biomass from our forests, especially low value wood,
deserves more attention. I know your research branch has been working
on this for many years but, as far as I know, little biomass is
utilized off national forest land. Using biomass could help reduce the
incidence of fires and help restore forests.
a. What specifically does the Forest Service have in its FY15
budget request for biomass research and utilization and what more can
you do?
b. How might you make use of biomass off the Monongahela National
Forest in my state?
Climate Change
Question 7. Climate change is an issue I know the Forest Service
has been involved with for a number of years, particularly in the area
of research. One topic, in relation to forest management, relates to
whether old growth forests or younger stands of trees sequester greater
amounts of carbon.
a. What does the science show?
b. How might National Forest System lands be able to sequester more
carbon?
c. What is proposed in the FY15 budget towards the mitigation of
climate change?
Partnerships
Question 8. I know of, and applaud, the many partnerships the
Monongahela has with public and private organizations. I also read in
your budget request the ``need to strengthen service through
cooperation, collaboration, and public-private partnerships''. I am
totally supportive of this. At the same time partners will sometimes
say that working with the Forest Service can be challenging both from
the amount of process that might be involved and that staff on forests
and districts may not have the time to forge and maintain partnerships.
a. What might you be proposing in your FY15 budget request that
will improve how the agency actively works with partner organizations?
b. How might the agency be able to make even better use of
partnerships and collaboration to achieve crucial on-the-ground work?
What added policy tools might be of assistance?
c. What partnership efforts do your research and state and private
branches have in West Virginia and how might they be improved?
Cooperative Fire
Question 9. Chief Tidwell, as you know I joined many of my
colleagues in the Senate in a letter to Secretary Hagel last week
seeking clarification around the status of excess property transfers
under the Firefighter Property Program and the Federal Excess Property
Program, which were recently stopped by the Department of Defense
citing EPA regulations. We now understand that the Defense Logistics
Agency and the EPA have reached an agreement to restart transfers by
confirming that the National Security Exemption would continue to apply
to certain vehicles without emissions certificates, but this agreement
appears to include a new requirement that DOD retain title to all
property covered by the National Security Exemption. How will this
agreement impact the two programs and the ability of local fire
departments to obtain equipment they need to do their jobs?
a. For FFP, how will preventing local fire departments from
obtaining title to covered equipment impact the workload of tracking
equipment at the Forest Service and for the states?
b. I understand the Forest Service gains access to excess equipment
under FEPP through the General Services Administration, or "GSA," do
you know if GSA is going to be able to offer equipment covered by the
NSE to the Forest Service for the FEPP program?
Wildfire Disaster Funding
Question 10. As you know I have cosponsored the Wyden-Crapo
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. It is important legislation.
a. What confidence do you have that, if enacted, we will finally
get beyond the need for transfers of funds from other agency accounts
and the periodic requests for emergency supplemental funding?
b. How long do you think it is going to take for the costs of
fighting fires to level off and even drop?
Question 11. What can the agency do, perhaps differently than has
been done previously, to really make a significant dent in this issue?
Question 12. What do you think about S.2593/does your agency have a
position on S.2593?
Question 13. What do you think would be the impacts on your agency
if S.2593 were enacted into law?
Question 14. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of
S.1875 as compared to relevant sections in S.2593?
Question 15. Do you have any comments on the statement (in S 2593):
. . . existing budget mechanisms for estimating the costs of
wildfire suppression are not keeping pace with the actual costs
for wildfire suppression due in part to improper budget
estimation methodology.
Question 16. In your opinion is there a way to improve upon using
the 10 year historical fire suppression average as a methodology and,
if yes, what might that be? Have you worked on beta-models of
statistical regression models that may take the place of the 10 year
average? If yes, has this shown any promise to be used-even in
combination-with historical rates of expenditures to estimate out-year
budget needs for fire suppression?
Question 17. Under one scenario in S.2593 it may be possible that
approximately $1 billion more would be used for fire suppression costs
and forest management activities, as compared to either the
administration proposal or S. 1875. Could you please give us an overall
idea what the possible effects of this might be?
Question for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Heinrich
Question 1. In your testimony you mention the one Very Large
Airtanker available to the Forest Service to fight wildland fires on a
Call When Needed Contract. Very Large Airtankers deliver four times
more retardant per load than other tankers. What is your assessment of
the relative advantages and value of using very large airtankers, such
as a DC-10, to fight wildland fires? Is the Forest Service considering
expanding the future use of very large airtankers?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Baldwin
Your budget has several outcome measures and many output measures.
While it can be useful to see outputs like board feet sold, or miles of
stream habitat restored, the outcomes of program work is really what
the public cares about. A stated goal of your Integrated Resource
Restoration proposal is to create economic opportunities for local
communities.
Until FY 2013 your budget tracked a measure of jobs related to
recreation on National Forests and Grasslands. I think that it would be
very useful to a broader outcome that can demonstrate what the Forest
Service is doing to advance those local economic opportunities.
Question 1. Will you work with your staff to create an outcome
measure that will help Congress and the public understand how
successful the Forest Service is at creating and sustaining economic
opportunities? How long will the process of creating that outcome
measure take, and will we see it in the FY 2016 Budget Request?
Question 2. How will you implement new authorities from the Farm
Bill and the FY 2014 Appropriations bill such as the insect and disease
designations, the good neighbor authority, and the now-permanent
stewardship contracting authority to increase the sale of timber on
forests like the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest that did not
previously have these authorities available?
When will forest product management authorities like the good
neighbor authority and stewardship contracting start to be used in
Wisconsin on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest?
Question 3. In addition to proposing a legislative fix to fire
borrowing for catastrophic wildfires, your budget proposes significant
increases for forest management and restoration funding, over a $60
million increase from the FY 2014 request. What outcomes can we expect
from the Forest Service if that request is fully funded?
What timber sales output and what levels of restoration can we
expect to see on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in FY 2015 if
Integrated Resource Restoration is approved and funded at $820 million
or if a pro-rated increase in funding were provided under the
traditional timber management budget line item?
Question 4. Wisconsin has a strong tradition of hunting, fishing
and enjoying the great outdoors. Outdoor recreation is an important
economic driver in Wisconsin, supporting 142,300 jobs and contributing
more than $11.9 billion annually to the state's economy. The 1.5
million acre Chequamegon-Nicolet National forest exists within a forest
boundary that is defined by a patchwork of ownership consisting of
national forest lands as well as about 500,000 acres of industrial
forest land, managed private lands, as well as State and county lands.
You are requesting $2 million specifically for recreational access
to Forest Service lands in the budget request in FY 2015, a decrease of
$500,000 from the FY 2014 request.
Why did you decrease your request for this important program that
increases recreational access for the public?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Murkowski
Anan Creek
In April 2013, at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
hearing to examine the Forest Service Budget for FY 2014, I asked you
about a popular wildlife viewing area located 30 miles southeast of
Wrangell, Alaska called Anan Creek. Anan Creek supports one of the
largest pink salmon runs in Southeast Alaska making it popular with
both brown and black bear. This site could be a tremendous tourism
opportunity for Southeast Alaska but there is a problem-there is
nowhere for boaters to tie up. The Forest Service has acknowledged that
this is a safety hazard that leads to damaged boats and planes and has
identified a need for a float dock. In August 2013, you visited the
site with me and saw first-hand the access challenges that could be
remedied by a float dock. It is unacceptable that the Forest Service
has allowed this safety hazard to continue at a premier bear viewing
site. You, yourself, told me, and I quote:
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 put a dock in
there. There are systems in place now that you can retract a
dock and then put it back out. [ . . . 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.] (See transcript for S. HRG 113-
26 p. 29-30).
Although the Forest Service still acknowledges the fact that a
float dock is needed at Anan Creek to mitigate the safety hazard, the
Forest Service recently informed my staff recently that it does not
currently have plans to install one. My staff was also told that the
Tongass National Forest was taking an interim step by installing a
float from another project at Anan Creek, but on a recent visit to the
site I did not see a float dock.
Question 1a. What is the status of this interim float dock? What
project is this float being removed from and installed at Anan Creek?
Question 1b. Chief, did you follow up as you said you would with
the Alaska Region to ensure that a dock was installed at the site? When
is the Forest Service going to install a float dock? Please provide a
timeline and the plan for installation.
Recreation Budget
I am receiving many complaints from constituents that the Forest
Service seems to be cutting funding for recreation programs at a higher
rate in Alaska than on the national forest system nationwide. In 2014,
your budget office informed my staff that the budgets for trails fell
13 percent annually in Alaska between 2009 and 2014, compared to a 7
percent annual drop nationwide, and that your budget for recreation
funding generally fell 23 percent in Alaska over the same period
compared to a 6 percent drop nationwide. Yet, at every turn, the Forest
Service is telling our communities to diversify and look more to
recreation-based tourism to fuel their economies.
Question 2a. If those numbers are accurate, why is Alaska taking
such a big hit compared to what is happening nationwide?
Question 2b. It is my understanding that the Forest Service in
Alaska is conducting public meetings to solicit input on the budgets
for the state's national forests. Constituents have contacted my office
to inform me that in these meetings, Forest Service employees are
stating that the recreation and wilderness budgets in Alaska are likely
to fall by another 50 percent over the next five years. Is that drop
attributable to estimates based on the 2011 sequestration process, or
is the Forest Service shifting funding out of the Alaska Region to
other regions nationwide? If so, why?
Question 2c. My office is also receiving reports that permits for
air taxi operators into lakes in and around Misty Fjords and bear
viewing at Anan Creek are being cut by the Tongass National Forest. The
reason reportedly being given by the Forest Service to these permit
holders for these cuts is that funding and personnel to administer the
permits have had to be shifted from recreation to the timber programs.
Is this true? Is it the position of the Forest Service that these two
programs- recreation and timber- must be an either/or proposition on
the Tongass? Please explain, in detail, how these two programs are
funded, staffed and managed on the Tongass.
Under Thunder Pathway Project
On November 25, 2013, I received a letter from your Forest Service
in response to my request regarding the Under Thunder Pathway Project
in Juneau, Alaska. In your letter, you indicated that the Forest
Service was working to find an expedient and appropriate solution, and
that two options were under review.
Question 3a. Have either of those options been selected by the
Forest Service?
Question 3b. What is the status of the Under Thunder Pathway
Project?
Question 3c. Has the trail construction been completed on USFS
land?
Roadless Rule
Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the rulemaking by
which the USDA promulgated the 2003 Tongass Exemption. We are still
waiting for a final resolution of the legal process, but I am hopeful
that soon the exemption will be restored. Regardless, you have
indicated on multiple occasions including publically during our August
2013 trip in Southeast Alaska that there is flexibility in the
application of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule that can be
exercised now to manage inventoried roadless. I am still waiting to see
this flexibility outlined and exercised in Alaska. The inventoried
roadless areas total approximately 9.6 million acres of the Tongass.
Currently, there are more than 30 hydroelectric projects alone affected
by the Rule.
Question 4a. Please outline what the Forest Service's plans are for
timber sales, hydroelectric projects, transmission lines, and mining
roads in inventoried roadless?
Question 4b. Please describe, in detail, the flexibilities you see
within the Roadless Rule and the Forest Service plans to exercise these
flexibilities in the management of inventoried roadless in Alaska.
Timber Budget
In 2005, the Forest Service offered 110 million board feet of
timber for sale in the Tongass, 65 mmbf actually being sold/cut. Last
year while sales were reduced due to lawsuits, you offered only 15.9
million board feet and thanks to previous years' surplus, 36.4 million
board feet were actually sold/harvested. Since the reimposition of the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule in Alaska in 2009, it is my
understanding that very little new road building costs are being
incurred in timber sales on the Tongass.
Question 5a. What was the actual budget for Forest Service
operations in the Tongass in 2005, compared to 2013 and how much of
that total budget was devoted to timber sales versus other Forest
Service activities in the Tongass? (Please provide this information in
actual dollars and as a percentage of the total budget)
Question 5b. Based on data supplied by the Forest Service, the
Alaska Region has 107 actual employees in the Regional Office, 358
employees dealing with the Tongass and 127 working in the Chugach
Forest. How many of these employees were devoted to timber harvesting
and how many to recreation, wilderness protection, maintenance of
forest trails and facilities, and other administrative functions and
how do those numbers compare to the historical norm in Alaska?
Timber Planning
Under the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, the Forest Service is
required to ``seek to meet'' market demand for timber from the Tongass
on an annual basis. Your office this spring indicated that the Forest
Service believes there is a demand for the sale of at least 142 million
board feet from the Tongass in fiscal year 2014 with a similar amount
needed for future years, while an unofficial summary of your timber
sale plans appear to indicate you are planning to offer only about 113
million board feet for sale over the next two years, with lesser
amounts thereafter.
Question 6a. Exactly how many timber sale planning and layout teams
are at work in Alaska today and how many do you anticipate needing for
the next five years? How many are focusing on traditional old-growth
sales and how many are focusing on new young-growth transition sales?
Question 6b. Aren't you required by the 1990 Act to plan for sales
of economically viable timber that will satisfy your estimate of market
demand for Alaska timber?
Question 6c. If you need additional funding to be able to prepare
sales to meet such demand, don't you have a legal obligation to seek
sufficient funding from Congress to meet the requirements of the 1990
act?
Tongass Transition
The Secretary of Agriculture last July signed a memorandum
proposing to transition timber harvesting in the Tongass National
Forest away from old-growth trees and instead focusing largely on
second- or young-growth timber within 10 to 15 years. The memorandum
also stated that transition assistance would be made available to
existing industry in order to help accomplish it.
Question 1. How much aid and what type of aid, does the Department
of Agriculture and the Forest Service intend to provide the industry in
Southeast to help it make the transition to young-growth timber
economically viable? When will that assistance be made available?
Question 2. How much are you planning to spend to lay out and offer
timber sales of old-growth timber over the next five years and how much
are you planning to spend to lay out and offer timber sales of young-
growth timber over the same period?
Question 3. Since you are required by law to offer only sales that
are profitable-non-deficit-how do you intend to make young-growth sales
profitable to operators?
Fuel Treatments
At the hearing, it was clear that the Forest Service in particular,
has a serious and extensive over-accumulation of vegetation problem on
its public forests that is fueling these large, intense and
catastrophically destructive wildfires that are occurring across the
West. An estimated 190 million acres of all federal forest and
rangelands are at an increased risk of catastrophic wildfire. Areas
that are called moderate to high risk are prone to large intense fires
that overwhelm suppression efforts and eat up the wildfire suppression
budget. The Forest Service has been clear that there is something we
can do about it. I quote:
Unlike other natural disasters such as earthquakes or
hurricanes, where the intensity of the natural event cannot be
influenced, the intensity of wildland/wildland-urban interface
fires can be reduced through responsible fuel management. Fuel
treatments can change fire behavior, decrease fire size and
intensity, divert fire away from high value resources, and can
result in reduced suppression costs. (Forest Service written
testimony on FY 2015 Budget)
Fuel Treatments include (1) biological methods such as prescribed
fire; (2) chemical use (herbicides); (3) mechanical thinning (using
saw, tractors and other logging equipment to cut up and remove woody
materials); (4) a combination of these methods. In high risk areas,
though, some fuels must be removed mechanically to reduce fuel loading
before it is possible to use prescribed fire.
Doing fuel treatment work appears to be the one thing we can do to
get a handle on the fire problem. With that in mind, it is my
understanding that the Forest Service reports on the number of acres
treated per year on the National Forest System, but it is unclear from
the number what you are counting in terms of treatment method or
whether these treatments are being done on actual acres that are at
risk of wildfire.
Question 8a. How many acres of National Forest System lands did the
Forest Service treat in fiscal year 2013? Please break down that number
according to the following:
Acres mechanically treated.
Acres mechanically treated using commercial timber harvest.
Acres treated with prescribed fire (please describe
specifically the number of acres treated with prescribed fire
that were wildfires burning within prescription, fires being
allowed to burn to achieve resource objectives, or acres burned
in back fires as part of suppression efforts).
Acres treated using other tools besides prescribed fire and
mechanical thinning. (describe the tools).
Question 8b. Please provide a table that shows by national forest
the number of acres treated using each of the treatment methods
described above for fiscal year 2013.
Wildfire Cap Adjustment
Question 9a. If budgeting and requesting 100 percent of the 10-year
average isn't working and your suppression costs are exceeding those
levels, why hasn't the Forest Service used a different method or
forecast model to determine the budget request for suppression that
might be more accurate?
Question 9b. If a FLAME Act regression model were used to calculate
your budget request for suppression, how much would you expect to have
to budget? How does that compare with the 10-year average? What effect,
if any, would this have on the rest of the Forest Service's
discretionary budget?
Question 9c. If a 5-year average were used to calculate your budget
request for suppression, how much would you have to budget? How does
that compare with the 10-year average? What effect, if any, would this
have on the rest of the Forest Service's discretionary budget?
Question 9d. Instead of requesting 100 percent of the 10-year
rolling average, your budget proposal requests just 70 percent of it.
This departs from the longstanding practice of the agency requesting
the 10-year average and the appropriations committee providing that
amount. How did you arrive at the 70 percent number?
Question 9e. Is it the position of the Forest Service that simply
exceeding 70 percent of the 10 year rolling average of suppression
costs equals an emergency or as you are calling it a ``disaster?''
Please explain.
Question 9f. In your reading of S.1875, the Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act, would simply exceeding 70 percent of the 10-year rolling
average of suppression costs trigger the wildfire cap adjustment?
Question 9g. Is it the position of the Forest Service that a
wildfire cap adjustment, like the one proposed in your budget, is
necessary to prevent fire borrowing from non-fire accounts, why or why
not? Please explain.
Question 9h. One of the arguments being made in support of this
proposal is that it will allow the agencies to fund more fire
prevention activities in its program budget, including hazardous fuel
reduction and forest restoration, because now you must only ask for 70
percent of the 10-year average instead of 100 percent? So, for example
in prior years, if the 10-year average was $1 billion, you requested $1
billion. Now you will request only $700 million and the $300 million
difference you claim will be used for forest management activities. Can
you outline for me specifically how much of these newly freed up funds
have been made available to the Forest Service through the cap
adjustment and how you intend to spend it?
Question 9i. In your reading of S.1875, the Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act, is there any provision in the bill that would direct
funding be spent on fire prevention activities, such as hazardous fuels
reduction and forest restoration? Yes or no. If yes, please cite the
provision.
Next Generation Airtankers
It is my understanding that just two of the seven Next Generation
airtankers are currently working. The two current vendors with
contracts that did supply Next Gen airtankers on time in 2013 have
since had four additional line items cancelled from their contracts. It
is my understanding that the Forest Service is looking to advertise yet
again for additional Next Gen airtankers this fall for flying in 2015.
Question 10. Why is the Forest Service failing to offer the
additional line items as per the contracts awarded to the two Next Gen
vendors that are contract compliant?
Question 11. How many gallons of retardant are dropped annually by
the Forest Service, and do you have a strategy for delivering it more
economically?
Question 12. Do you believe there is an associated cost to the
Forest Service, and by inference the taxpayer, to contracting large
airtankers for single year contracts instead of five to ten year
contracts?
Question 13. Why are there still unmet contracts for Next Gen
airtankers when there are proven, economical large airtankers without
long term contracts?
Question 14. At present, given the limited size of the Large
Airtanker fleet and the unlikelihood of significant growth in the near
term, is there anything the Forest Service can do to apply the concepts
of force multiplication to the fleet you have currently?
Equipment and Firefighter Expenses
Question 15. Can you tell me how much was expended last fire season
on each of these categories of equipment and workers during fire
suppression efforts? Please include base pay, overtime, hazard pay, and
cost of benefits (including the cost of paying unemployment) in the
total. as Also, please include the cost of transporting and housing the
overhead and crews while dispatched from their home base.
a) Fixed wing retardant aircraft;
b) Fixed wing lead and infrared or fire detection aircraft;
c) Helicopters by type I and type II;
d) Bull dozers;
e) Other support heavy equipment (pumper trucks, water trucks,
buses, etc);
f) Other firefighting equipment or tools ( chainsaws, shovels,
pumps, radios etc) used during suppression efforts;
g) Funds expended to pay for camp equipment and caterers etc.;
h) Fire crews:
1) Overhead;
2) Smoke jumpers;
3) Type one crews (hot shots);
4) Type two crews;
5) Contract crews (including reimbursement to state or local
fire);
6) Any other type of crews;
7) The cost of WO staff, regional office staff;, forest
supervisor staff, and District overhead working on fires during
the fire season.
Coast Guard Planes
As a result of the 2014 Defense Authorization Act, you will receive
seven older C-130 H model airplanes from the Coast Guard.
Question 16. Can you tell me what work has been done so far and
what remains to be accomplished to complete the transfer and get the
planes on the line, fighting fire?
Question 17. Does the Forest Service have the means to reduce unit
costs, for acres treated or units of wood produced, on acres outside of
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project areas? Can you
describe those to us?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Does either the Administration proposal or S. 1875
contain language guarantying or specifying funds will be directed to
any preventative projects such as hazardous fuels reduction?
Question 2. Does either the Administration proposal or S. 1875
contain providing legislative reforms aimed at streamlining active
management and reducing litigation?
Question 3. Can you describe in some detail the pilot efforts the
Forest Service is engaged in to streamline NEPA compliance on larger
landscapes? Which forests are involved? How many acres total? What are
the expected outputs?
Question 4. The Federal Excess Personal Property Program and the
Firefighter Property Program are very important to rural communities'
ability to fight fires. These programs account for 40% of the wildland
firefighting equipment in Wyoming. I understand red tape and
uncertainty over emissions regulations between the Department of
Defense and the EPA has recently prevented state foresters from
acquiring needed surplus military equipment.
What is the Forest Service's role in ensuring this equipment is
available and the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the state
foresters and governors?
Question 5. I want to inquire about when the Forest Service will
issue guidance for implementation of the expanded Good Neighbor
Authority provided in the 2014 Farm Bill. At this point we've seen
nothing to give the field units the direction to use this new
authority, even though it was signed into law in February.
Will National Forest System units be able to use the authority in
Fiscal year 2015?
Question 6. Can you explain why the three IRR pilot regions have
the highest unit costs for each unit of wood produced? Incidentally,
their unit costs go up even higher if you factor our personal use
firewood, which accounts for up to 40% of the volume in the pilot
regions. Why hasn't IRR reduced unit costs after 4 years of effort?
Question 7. You're familiar with the mountain pine beetle epidemic
that has killed millions of acres of trees in the national forests in
Wyoming over the last 15 years. The beetle epidemic threatens our
forests and creates the potential for catastrophic fires. There is a
tremendous amount of work needed, including salvage of dead trees and
thinning ahead of the beetles where the forests are still green. For
the last two years, the State of Wyoming appropriated millions of
dollars to help fight the beetle epidemic. Private industry has
invested millions of dollars into infrastructure to help the Forest
Service manage the national forests, especially the Medicine Bow and
the Black Hills. The Forest Service timber sale program in Wyoming
should be ramping up, not tapering off.
What work is being done by the Forest Service to ensure that the
national forests in Wyoming have the resources, tools, and expectation
to respond to their full capacity to the mountain pine beetle epidemic
in FY 15?
Question 8. Last month, 37 members of Congress sent a letter to
Secretaries Vilsack and Jewell on the issue of domestic sheep grazing
allotments in bighorn sheep core areas. The Governors of Idaho, Utah,
and Wyoming also recently sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack outlining
their concerns with steps being taken by the Forest Service in Region
4. Both letters stress the need for alternative allotments to be made
available to permittees prior to removing domestic sheep from their
current allotments.
If relocation is needed, will you commit to making sure permittees
have suitable alternative allotments, with an updated NEPA analysis in
place prior to removing them from their current allotments?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Heller
News reports earlier this month that discussed that some of the
highest risks near power lines and critical infrastructure put some of
our Northern Nevada communities and the neighboring communities in
California at-risk for rolling blackouts.
Question 1. What are your agencies doing to proactively mitigate
the risk to critical infrastructure?
Question 2. Can the agency mobilize fuel reduction quickly and
proactively to treat high-risk areas where a fire could threaten rural
communities or critical infrastructure, like power lines or our water
delivery infrastructure?
As you know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency is under a court
order to make a listing determination on the Greater Sage-Grouse under
the ESA by Sept. 2015. The responsibility of the health of Nevada's
sagebrush ecosystem and rangeland-the critical habitat of the Greater
sage-grouse-falls almost entirely on the federal land managers that
control over 85% of the land in Nevada. While I understand the BLM and
the U.S. Forest Service are in the process of making Resource
Management Plan amendments to address threats to habitat, such as
wildfire, I fear the further restriction of multiple-use of public
lands instead of successfully dealing with wildfire, invasive species,
predators, and other threats will not be sufficient to prevent a
threatened or endangered listing of the sage-grouse under the
Endangered Species Act.
Question 3. How can we spur faster fuel reduction on lands
identified as priority habitat for the sage-grouse? Not enough is being
done to truly address wildfire threats to habitat and a listing of the
sage-grouse will devastate the rural communities in my state.
As you're aware, we have been working hard to find solutions to
reimburse contractors and others who did legitimate work to reduce the
risk of wildfires within the Tahoe Basin between 2010 and 2011. This
work was done on behalf of the now-defunct Nevada Fire Safe Council. As
it currently stands, the issue involves the OIG and Office of General
Council, the mingling of funds, as well as bankruptcy proceedings.
Since last year, my office, and others in the delegation, have
attempted to work with the FS on getting our contractors,
subcontractors, chiefs and others reimbursed for the work they
accomplished and completed. In March of this year, the Lake Tahoe Basin
Fire Chiefs provided a financial document of the unpaid debts of the
Council for completed wildlife prevention projects. This has been
presented to both the FS and the BLM.
Question 1. Please provide a status update on these unpaid debts
and how we can address this issue of reimbursement moving forward.
Question 2. I would also like confirmation that we will continue to
receive the federal support for fuels reduction in the Basin, and
elsewhere, this fire season?
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Flake
Question 1. Can you explain the Forest Service's slow response to
the loss of 56,000 of NEPA-ready acres in the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest, and specifically what the Forest Service intends to do
now to bridge the gap between expiration of the White Mountain
Stewardship Contract and the second phase of the Four Forest
Restoration Initiative? In short, what is the Forest Service doing to
ensure that adequate material is available to allow private industry in
Arizona to continue thinning the forests?
Question 2. In your testimony, you indicate that the
administration's wildfire budget proposal will allow the Forest Service
"to stabilize and invest in programs that more effectively restore
forested landscapes, treat forests for the increasing effects of
climate change, and prepare communities in the WUI for future
wildfires." Yet, at least one senior member of the Senate
Appropriations Committee has indicated that the Committee could use the
extra resources to fund "the Land and Water Conservation Fund, resource
conservation and energy permitting." What guarantees are there in the
administration's proposal that the Appropriations Committee would
direct resources to address hazardous fuel reduction?
Question 3. If the administration's wildfire budget proposal is
effective and fire suppression costs are reduced over time, how does
the reduction in suppression costs affect the 30% cap adjustment?
Question 4. Is the 10-year average of wildfire suppression costs an
accurate tool for estimating budgets?
Question 5. If the 10-year average is not accurate, is there a
better formula?
Question 6. If there is not a better formula, will the Forest
Service commit to developing a better budgeting formula?
Question 7. Of the times when the Forest Service had to transfer
funds from non-fire accounts over the last 10 years, how were those
accounts repaid? That is, were those accounts repaid through
supplemental appropriations, with an emergency provision, or as part of
the 302(b) spending caps in a continuing resolution, or some other
mechanism?
Question 8. Were those accounts fully repaid?
Question 9. If not, how much was not repaid?
Question 10. In your testimony, you cite a Forest Service Missoula
Fire Lab analysis from 2012 stating that the analysis ``showed 58
million acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands with a high, or
very high, potential for a large wildfire that would be difficult for
suppression resources to contain.'' How many of those acres is the
Forest Service planning to treat in the next 10 years under existing
authorities?
Question 11. Is the administration aware that in CBO's analysis of
a similar wildfire budgeting proposal it concluded, ``[B]ecause the
bills also would change the way that the disaster caps are calculated
by taking into account certain funds appropriated for wildfire
suppression, CBO expects that upward adjustments in the discretionary
caps for wildfire suppression would probably exceed reductions in the
caps for disaster relief relative to current law.''?
Question 12. Will the Forest Service commit to working with
Senators McCain, Barrasso, and myself on resolving this devastating
fire borrowing problem, more accurately funding wildfire suppression,
and committing resources to proactive forest restoration?
Question 13. Has the Forest Service studied the impact of wildfires
on climate change and endangered species?
Question 14. How is the Forest Service studying the use of unmanned
aerial systems or UAS and their ability to help fight wildfires?
Question 15. In 2005, Congress passed the Northern Arizona Land
Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 (Public Law No.
109-110). Among other things, the law provided for the sale of
approximately 237.5 acres of Forest Service land to Young Life. Despite
Congressional direction on this specific topic, I now understand that
the Forest Service is only offering to sell 213 acres to Young Life.
Can you explain the reason for the decision to sell an amount different
than what was in the legislation?
Question 16. Did both parties, the Forest Service and Young Life,
agree to this change?
Question 17. Please provide a copy of the map entitled ``Yavapai
Ranch Land Exchange, Younglife Lost Canyon'' dated August 2004.
Questions for Thomas Tidwell From Senator Hoeven
Question 1. As we discussed during the stakeholder meeting in my
state, the Pautre Wildfire has affected several grazers and I urged you
to use your authority to expeditiously move through the Tort Claim
process so that grazers can receive appropriate compensation from
losses due to a fire caused by the Forest Service. When can ranchers
expect to receive reimbursements?
Question 2. As you know, wildfires have always been common and
widespread in North Dakota. On a broader scale, there are more than
70,000 communities that we know are at risk from wildfire.
Specifically, the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire
Assistance Programs are primary federal programs that assist
communities to prepare for, and states and local fire departments to
respond to, wildfires. We know that state and local resources are often
the first to arrive at wildland fires, regardless of where they start-
national forests, BLM, private or state lands.
How is your department focusing on helping communities prepare for
wildfires in advance and bolstering state and local initial attack
resources to help keep unwanted fires, and their costs, as low as
possible?
Question 3. As you know, I was a member of the Senate and House
conference committee which worked to pass a long-term Farm Bill.
Included in the bill are several important authorities for the Forest
Service which I hope will help reduce the cost of managing forests.
Specifically, we included authority for Stewardship Contracting, the
Good Neighbor Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation
provision.
Can you speak to the role of each of these authorities in helping
the Forest Service get more work done on the ground, work that is
urgently needed to ensure long-term ecological, economic and social
health of our forests, communities, and economies?
Question 4. Given the importance of domestic energy production to
our economy and national security, and recognizing that much of this
new energy production is a result of the use of hydraulic fracturing
and horizontal drilling, can you confirm that these two technologies
are currently being used to produce energy in US forests? Do you think
the Forest Service should ever categorically prohibit oil and gas
activity, including the use of these two technologies?
Questions for Dan Gibbs From Senator Manchin
Question 1. What do think it may take to really get a handle on the
massive issues facing forests across your state? You highlight the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act and S. 1875 (Wyden-Crapo) as two
important things. Do you have any other recommendations for us?
Question 2. Do you have an opinion on the possible prioritization
of fire-fighting and forest fuels reduction activities, possibly at the
expense of other programs that the Forest Service and DOI agencies
undertake?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
July 25, 2014.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
Chair, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Re: Letter for the record, Wildfire Preparedness & Forest Service 2015
Fiscal Year Budget hearing of July 15, 2014
Dear Chair Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski,
On behalf of our millions of members across the nation, we are
writing to express our concerns regarding Senator McCain's S.2593,
which was discussed during the July 15, 2014 hearing in the U.S. Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This bill undermines
existing bipartisan efforts to resolve the longstanding funding crises
caused by wildfire suppression and facilitates legislation to mandate
prescribed logging levels for National Forests across the United
States, while also waiving or severely undermining compliance with
federal environmental laws and eliminating the public's ability to seek
judicial review of logging projects that may damage their communities.
While Title I--FLAME Act Amendments of S.2593 attempts to provide
an additional path forward for addressing the growing costs of wildfire
suppression on our nation's public lands, and appropriately
acknowledges that existing FLAME funds have inadequately covered these
rising costs, this Title is not clear on how it would improve funding
of wildfire suppression without continuing to burden existing
appropriations to the Department of Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department
of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service (USFS). In sum, Title I does not
sufficiently resolve the wildlfire funding crisis caused by fire
borrowing, and appears to maintain this funding burden on existing
limited program budgets. Further, the legislation lacks clear direction
on when and how to access a funding Disaster Cap, which could be
supplemental to existing appropriations to address wildfire funding.
As you know, the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA)
(S.1875) seeks to improve the way the U.S. Forest Service and
Department of the Interior funds the response to emergency fires. This
legislation, unlike S.2593 seeks a clear, tangible, and budget neutral
solution. Currently, USFS and DOI are the only agencies required to pay
for natural disaster response out of their annual discretionary
budgets. Since 2000, these agencies have consistently run out of money
to fight emergency fires, eight out of the last 13 years. In the last
two years alone, more than $1 billion was ``borrowed'' from other USFS
programs to cover the costs of fire suppression. The depletion of non-
suppression programs within USFS and DOI halts important land
management activities that could help reduce fire risk and suppression
costs in the future.
In May 2014, a DOI report, as required by the FLAME Act of 2009,
projected the median cost of fighting fires at nearly $1.8 billion this
year, which is more than $460 million over the USFS and DOI fire
budgets. We need a balanced approach to fire suppression, and the WDFA
is a responsible and stable budgeting bill. Federal agencies must be
provided the tools and resources to successfully fight fire, this
season and always, to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of
our nation's forests. Unfortunately, Title I of S.2593 does not get us
there in its current form.
In addition, Title II--Forest Treatment Projects of S.2593 is
reflective of Senator Barrasso's S.1966, but now applies nationwide,
rather than to states only West of the 100th meridian. A more detailed
analysis of the provisions included in Title II, as they are in S.1966
is in the attached Appendix A. However, our organizations oppose Title
II because it:
Eliminates environmental safeguards.--This title waives or
severely undermines with important environmental protections,
like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and years of collaboratively
developed land management plans under the National Forest
Management Act and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act.
Damages watersheds and pollute drinking water.--
Industrialization of public lands through Title II of S.2596
will damage watersheds and pollute drinking water, putting our
drinking water supply at risk, as over 50% of fresh water
supplies in the West come from federal forests. Intensive
logging and other extractive practices dumps sediment into
rivers, which can increase costs for local water utilities,
cause erosion, and can alter the timing of water
availability.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Restoring watersheds where possible from destructive logging
can cost taxpayers--including counties--hundreds of millions of dollars
a year in lost revenues and vital ecosystem services. For example, in
1996, Salem, Oregon was forced to spend nearly $100 million on new
water treatment facilities after logging fouled the Santiam River with
mud and silt. Salem is not alone; up to 124 million people nationwide
receive drinking water from national forest watersheds, with an
estimated $4 to $27 billion annual value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harms businesses and jobs that depend on our forests.--The
outdoor recreation industry directly supports 6.1 million jobs
and contributes over $646 billion annually to the US economy,
including $39.7 billion to state/local revenues.\2\ Damaging
these resources will directly impact outdoor-related businesses
that generate revenue for counties and employ a range of
skilled workers including sport and commercial fisherman,
hunters, and anglers. A recent USFS' annual visitor survey
showed that national forests attracted 166 million visitors in
2011, and that visitor spending in nearby communities sustained
more than 200,000 full-and part-time jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Outdoor Industry Association, THE OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMY
(2012), available at http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/
researchfiles/OIA_OutdoorRecEconomyReport2012.pdf?167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidates our natural heritage and does not address county
funding.--We understand and sympathize with the tight budgets
that many local governments are facing. However, this
shortsighted proposal may cost taxpayers more than the revenue
it generates. It would reestablish the discredited county
revenue sharing scheme that was eliminated over a decade ago
because of the disastrous economic and ecological impacts it
had. It also abandons our nation's vision of and commitment to
a strong system of national safeguards to preserve our natural
heritage.
Senseless economics.--Increased federal expenditures may be
required in order for the USFS to comply with and implement
Title II's requirements to offer for harvest up to 25% of each
National Forest's ``Logging Emphasis Areas.'' Moreover, it
fails to provide a long-term, sustainable funding solution for
our rural communities, and will likely result in counties
receiving far less in annual payments that they have received
under the Secure Rural Schools program, the current law that
provides direct payments to counties without mandated logging
requirements.
Thank you for your consideration of these and like concerns
regarding S.2593. We understand and appreciate the committee's
commitment to addressing major concerns regarding wildfire funding, as
expressed in the July 15, 2014 Senate Energy and Natural Resources
hearing. However, S.2593 does not sufficiently address or support real
solutions to this crisis, and instead acts as a distraction to this
pressing funding issue. Instead, we support moving WDFA forward, as a
real, bipartisan opportunity to resolving the wildfire funding crisis
this year and in perpetuity.
Sincerely,
Athan Manuel,
Director of the Public Lands Protection Program, Sierra Club,
Alan Rowsome,
Senior Director of Government Relations for Lands, The Wilderness
Society,
Mary Beth Beetham,
Director of Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife,
Martin Hayden,
Vice President, Policy and Legislation, Earthjustice.
Appendix A
s. 1966, senator barrasso's national forest logging bill
This bill mandates legislatively prescribed logging levels for each
National Forest across most of the western United States, while also
waiving or severely undermining compliance with federal environmental
laws and eliminating the public's ability to seek judicial review of
logging projects that may damage their communities. Legislative timber
harvest prescriptions are in direct contravention of the multiple use
mandate of the Forest Service, whose land managers must set out--
pursuant to locally and collaboratively-developed management plans--how
best to manage each individual forest for not only timber production,
but also the many vital benefits these lands provide, such as clean
drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and hunting, fishing,
hiking, and other recreational opportunities that support a multi-
billion dollar outdoor industry critically important to rural
communities and regional economies.
S. 1966 also strives to reinstate the discredited system of linking
logging to revenue for counties. This volatile and unreliable resource
extraction model was eliminated over a decade ago with the bipartisan
passage of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000 (otherwise known as ``Secure Rural Schools'' or ``SRS'').
S. 1966 could decimate our western National Forests for special
interests without addressing the true, long-term needs of rural
communities.
Just this past September, the Administration echoed these
sentiments when it issued a strong veto threat against similar national
forest legislation in House bill H.R. 1526. The September 18, 2013
Statement of Administration Policy made clear that the ``Administration
does not support specifying timber harvest levels in statute, which
does not take into account public input, environmental analyses,
multiple use management or ecosystem changes'' and that it strongly
opposes because of ``numerous harmful provisions that impair Federal
management of federally owned lands and undermines many important
existing public land and environmental laws, rules and processes,''
which could ``significantly harm sound long-term management of these
Federal lands for continued productivity and economic benefit as well
as for the long-term health of the wildlife and ecological values
sustained by these holdings.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
legislative/sap/113/saphr1526r_20130918.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bullet point summary
Sec. 4(a): Legislatively Prescribes Logging Levels
Mandates a minimum of 7.5 million acres be logged from
national forests in the West during a 15-year period and gives
the Secretary of Agriculture sole discretion to establish a
much higher level, including up to 25% of each unit's Emphasis
Areas. Final logging levels are almost completely immune from
review or challenge. Science not politics should dictate
logging levels, and the public should be able to weigh in on
major decisions like how many millions of acres of national
forest land can be logged across the west.
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct logging
projects in ``Forest Management Emphasis Areas'' in each
National Forest unit west of the 100th meridian--this impacts
national forests in portions of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, and all national forests in
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska
``Emphasis Areas'' are defined as any national forest land
``identified as suitable for timber production in a forest
management plan in effect on the date of enactment''--forest
plans that are revised after the bill's enactment can only
reduce the number of acres designated as suitable for timber
harvest if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that it will
jeopardize an endangered species (section 4(d)). This provision
would completely bar the Forest Service from considering water
quality issues, pollution, climate change and other wildlife
aspects of forest health in determining logging levels.
Only areas that are excluded from ``Logging Emphasis Areas''
are designated wilderness and areas where removal of vegetation
is specifically prohibited by federal law--exemptions do not
include wilderness study areas, old growth, or other
conservation lands, including ecologically sensitive areas
unsuitable for harvest that aren't reflected in yet-to-
beupdated forest management plan
Within 60 days of enactment, Secretary must assign logging
requirements (referred to as ``acreage treatment
requirements'') that covers up to 25% for each Emphasis Area
Limits Stewardship and Service contracts, as the bill
requires that logging projects must be carried out primarily
pursuant to the timber sale contracting provision of the
National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 472a)--if different
contracting methods are used, such as stewardship contracting,
the USDA Secretary must provide a written record specifying the
reasons
In direct contravention of the National Forest Management
Act's requirement that designation, marking, and supervision of
harvesting of trees must be conducted by USDA employees in
order to avoid having a conflict of interest in the purchase or
harvest of such products (see 16 U.S.C. 472a(g)), the bill
allows the Secretary to designate this authority to outside
parties such as the timber industry
Sec. 4(b): Limits Environmental Review and Public Participation
Secretary shall comply with NEPA by only completing an
Environmental Assessment (EA), even if a more comprehensive
review and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are
warranted
EA only has to disclose and analyze the direct effects of
each covered project (barred from analyzing the cumulative
impacts or indirect effects of covered projects for that
national forest unit)
EA is also not required to study or describe more than the
proposed action and 1 additional alternative
EA can't exceed 100 pages in length and must be completed
within 180 days of published notice of logging project
Secretary must provide public notice of a covered project
and allow opportunity for public comment--no time period is
given but given that EA must be completed within 180 days of
public notice, comment period will presumably be very short
Sec. 4(c): Waives ESA Consultation
Rather than having to comply with ESA's section 7
requirements to consult with expert wildlife officials from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill requires USDA to only
consult within its own staff on the Forest Service to make
potential wildlife jeopardy determinations resulting from
covered logging projects
This ``self-consultation'' is not consultation at all and
essentially waives compliance with the ESA
USDA is also given authority to make jeopardy determinations
regarding timber harvest levels--while the bill does call for
consultation with DOI on this one issue (see section 4(d)), it
appears to move the determination about jeopardy to USDA, a
complete shift from current practice and wholly contrary to
ESA's requirements that call for US FWS to make the
determination as to when something will or will not jeopardize
an endangered species
Sec. 5: Eliminates Judicial Review and Sets up Biased Arbitration
Process
Citizens can only seek administrative review of a covered
project pursuant to the limited administrative review process
under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003
Public's ability to seek judicial review of harmful logging
projects is waived
Instead, a special arbitration process (that must be
completed within 90 days) is the ``sole means'' by which to
challenge a decision made following the special administrative
review process
Request for arbitration must be filed within 30 days after
the administrative review decision is issued and objector must
include a proposal containing changes sought to the covered
project (changes could include making the project larger and
more damaging)
Arbitration process would allow anyone who submitted a
public comment on the project to intervene in the arbitration
by submitting a proposal supporting or modifying the covered
project (which could include making the project larger and more
damaging) within 30 days of arbitration request
United States District Court in the district where project
is located must appoint the arbitrator
Arbitrator cannot modify any of the proposals submitted
under this section and must select a proposal submitted by the
objector or an intervening party--arbitrator must select the
proposal that best meets the purpose and needs described in the
Environmental Assessment for the project (which biases the
decision toward the proposal that allows the logging project or
even a potentially more harmful project to be carried out)
Arbitrator's decision is binding, shall not be subject to
judicial review, and shall not be considered a major Federal
action (which would foreclose additional NEPA review even if an
objector or intervenor's new proposal is selected that has
additional impacts not previously analyzed and disclosed in the
Environmental Assessment for the original project)
Sec. 6: Sets up Revenue Sharing System Linked to Commodity Extraction
Provides that 25% of the revenues derived from covered
projects will be distributed to counties
Reestablishes the discredited 25 percent revenue sharing
system that was eliminated over a decade ago with the creation
of Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program, which provides direct
payments to counties without linking to timber receipts
Allows some counties to ``double dip'' since in addition to
the 25% revenue sharing payments that counties would receive
from covered projects under S. 1966, some counties would still
also receive their payments under the Twenty-Five Percent Fund
Act of 1908
______
July 18, 2014.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski,
The Wilderness Society appreciates the Committee's interest in
addressing budgetary problems relating to the Forest Service's fire
management funding, as were discussed at the July 15 hearing on
Wildfire Preparedness and the Forest Service Fiscal Year 2015 Budget.
Please include these comments regarding S. 1875 and S. 2593 in the
hearing record.
background
Extreme droughts and climate change have produced longer fire
seasons and larger wildfires in much of the West. However, federal
funding has not kept pace with need and the increased costs of fighting
or preventing these fires. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, the Forest
Service has had to ``borrow'' funds from other key programs, including
fuels management and recreation, in order to cover the costs of
firefighting that exceed the amount appropriated by Congress. The
Forest Service predicts that this fire season will cost half a billion
dollars more than they have on hand. In this fiscal climate, it is
impossible to transfer such a significant amount of resources away from
other programs in the height of the summer field work and recreation
season without seriously compromising management of our national
forests.
In 1991, the cost of wildfire management represented 13 percent of
the U.S. Forest Service budget--today it consumes nearly 50 percent.
For years the Forest Service has had to borrow billions of dollars from
critical conservation programs to fund wildfire suppression because
Congress has not allocated enough funding. The Forest Service has then
had to depend on Congress to pass emergency supplemental funding bills
to repay the programs that were raided. The current fire funding system
has been debilitating to the Forest Service, frustrating to the public
and many businesses that use our national forests, and has exacerbated
the already intensified wildfire season.
s. 1875
The Wilderness Society strongly supports S. 1875, the Wildfire
Disaster Funding Act of 2013, co-sponsored by Senators Wyden and Crapo.
This bill provides a bipartisan, budget-neutral mechanism for Congress
to budget responsibly for fighting wildfires, in the same way Congress
budgets for all other natural disasters.
S. 1875 would fund a portion of the Forest Service's and Interior
Department's wildfire suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment
similar to the cap adjustment currently in use by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985. Fighting wildfires would be funded with the same
mechanism currently used to combat all other natural disasters. This
bill will not change federal fire suppression policies or strategies
and will not change the cost of fire suppression, and thus the
Congressional Budget Office has reported that it would have a neutral
impact on federal spending in the fiscal year 2015 federal budget. The
Act would provide a reliable funding structure, allowing us to address
catastrophic wildfires as the natural disasters they truly are.
s. 2593
We have serious concerns about portions of S. 2593, the FLAME Act
Amendments of 2014, co-sponsored by Senators McCain, Barrasso, and
Flake. In particular, we strongly oppose `Title II--Forest Treatment
Projects' because we believe it poses a serious threat to environmental
stewardship, public involvement, wildlife conservation, and the rule of
law in our national forests. Title II is virtually identical to
language in S. 1966, Senator Barrasso's ``National Forest Jobs and
Management Act,'' which was introduced on January 28 and was the
subject of a SENR Committee hearing on February 6.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Wilderness Society submitted detailed comments on S. 1966
for the record of the February 6 hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Forest Treatment Projects title of S. 2593 is aimed at
increasing timber production, not at reducing fuels and fire risk.
Reflecting S. 1966's objective to ``create a sustainable wood supply''
from the national forests, the bill directs the Forest Service to
emphasize sawtimber and pulpwood outputs. Title II makes no mention of
fuel or fire risk reduction as a desired outcome of the required
commercial logging.
Second, S. 2593 would hamper the Forest Service's ability to
accomplish forest restoration and multiple-use management by giving the
agency a legal mandate to achieve the bill's ambitious commercial
logging targets. The bill's legally binding mandate to conduct
mechanical treatments on 7.5 million acres in 15 years--nearly three
times more than current treatment levels--could exacerbate the fire-
borrowing problem by requiring the Forest Service to divert resources
away from non-commercial fuels work and all other environmental
stewardship activities in the national forests.
Third, S. 2593 would increase public controversy and environmental
conflicts by establishing more than 40 million acres of ``Forest
Management Emphasis Areas'' in the national forests. The designated
timberlands potentially include forests located in Inventoried Roadless
Areas, Northwest Forest Plan Late Successional Reserves, and other
sensitive lands that have been administratively protected for more than
a decade. The bill would also prohibit the Forest Service from reducing
the amount of suitable timberlands through revisions of local forest
plans unless necessary to avoid jeopardizing an endangered species,
thereby limiting management options available to the agency and the
public in the planning process.
Fourth, S. 2593 would short-cut public participation and
environmental review by weakening requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill specifies that Forest Service
environmental assessments would only be required to consider the
``direct environmental effects'' of each project, implying that
indirect and cumulative effects analysis normally required under NEPA
would no longer be done. The bill also specifies that the Forest
Service is only required to evaluate the proposed agency action and one
alternative, rather than a range of alternatives normally considered in
environmental impact statements.
In addition, the bill apparently would eliminate the interagency
consultation process required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act as applied to the bill's ``covered projects.'' Rather than
consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill provides
that Forest Service professional staff members will make the
determinations required by Section 7 of the ESA, presumably including
the key determination that a covered project will not jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species.
Finally, we are very concerned about the bill's proposal to
establish a pilot program authorizing the use of an arbitration process
and eliminating the opportunity for judicial review of covered
projects. The proposed arbitration process provides no means to ensure
that the Forest Service is actually following environmental laws--i.e.
it would authorize ``logging without laws.'' The arbitrator would not
be able to consider and rule on the legal adequacy of the process by
which the agency arrived at its decision. Conceivably, a local district
ranger and forest supervisor could entirely skip normal public
involvement and Endangered Species Act requirements in order to achieve
their legally-mandated mechanical treatment targets.
In conclusion, The Wilderness Society strongly supports S. 1875 and
adamantly opposes the Forest Treatment Projects title of S. 2593.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Rowsome,
Senior Director of Government Relations for Lands.
[all]