    [Senate Hearing 114-493]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-493

         THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 8, 2016

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    21-967                     WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director
                Angela Becker-Dippman, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
            Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     3

                                    WITNESS

    Tidwell, Thomas, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
      Agriculture....................................................     8

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Chart entitled ``60% Increase in Firefighting Funding''......     4
        Chart entitled ``Fire Suppression Costs Are Projected to Grow
          Significantly''............................................     6
    Congress of the United States (Gardner, Tipton, Coffman, Lamborn,
      Buck):
        Letter to Secretary Tom Vilsack dated January 20, 2016.......    45
    Gardner, Hon. Cory:
        Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Colorado
          Springs by and through its Parks, Recreation and Cultural
          Services Department and the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Colorado
          Parks and Wildlife-Cheyenne Mountain State Park, El Paso
          County, and the Broadmoor Hotel, for Coordinated Treatment
          of the Douglas-fir Tussock Moth and the Western Spruce
          Budworm....................................................    38
    Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:
        Letter to Secretary Tom Vilsack dated April 6, 2015..........    43
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Tidwell, Thomas:
        Opening Statement............................................     8
        Written Testimony............................................    11
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    58

         THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                 ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Chief.
        We are here this morning to review the President's request
    for the Forest Service for Fiscal Year 2017.
        Chief Tidwell, it is good to be able to welcome you back to
    the Committee. We appreciate you being here to explain the
    President's proposal.
        It is probably not going to be a surprise to you that I am
    not enamored with it. In fact, I have got some issues with
    several aspects of it. I will just mention a couple of them
    this morning in my opening statement.
        We have several proposals here within the budget, a number
    of mandatory spending proposals, without providing offsets. I
    have mentioned this as other members of the Cabinet have come
    before us that when we have mandatory spending proposals with
    no offsets that is problematic.
        The Secure Rural Schools program, SRS, is clearly an
    example of that. We have reached a point where if we are not
    cutting trees on federal lands, and we hardly are, then
    counties, parishes and boroughs are going to be cutting their
    budgets. That is not acceptable. The timber industry can be
    sustainable but the funding required for SRS without offsets
    and in the absence of timber harvesting is not.
        We have many communities around the country, particularly
    in the West, that are dependent economically on the active
    management of our national forests. As you know, Southeast
    Alaska is full of such communities, and this is not a budget
    that they are going to find appealing.
        On the Tongass, the Secretary of Agriculture has directed
    the Forest Service to expedite a transition away from old
    growth timber harvesting towards a timber program focused on
    predominately young growth. We know that this is a Secretarial
    mandate and it will fundamentally change the way the Tongass is
    managed, but there is no mention of the transition in this
    budget to explain how it will be executed and how it will be
    funded. Yet that does not stop the Forest Service from moving
    on a plan amendment to lock in this transition before this
    Administration leaves office.
        I think that the Forest Service needs to do what is right
    and what the Tongass Advisory Committee called for in its
    recommendations and that is a comprehensive, stand level
    inventory to address the uncertainties that exist in the
    amount, volume and timing of the availability of young growth
    to support transition.
        A successful transition will only be possible if it is
    grounded in strong science and backed by comprehensive data. As
    a starting point, as a matter of common sense, really, we need
    a complete inventory before we allow a plan amendment to move
    forward.
        In the meantime, it is critical that the Forest Service
    provide enough timber to meet market demand because if you do
    not do that, we have had this conversation so many times, if we
    do not do that, there is not any industry left to transition.
        Another issue that I know that we will hear a lot of
    discussion about this morning is how this budget proposes to
    address wildfire. Again the Forest Service budget asks Congress
    to fund just 70 percent of the ten-year average of suppression
    costs. A proposed cap adjustment would pay for the remaining 30
    percent as well as any costs above the ten-year average. This
    idea has been rejected every year since it was first proposed
    in the FY 2015 budget.
        There is not an agreement here in Congress on whether or
    how to address what this proposal is aimed at, the growth of
    fire programs as a percentage of the Forest Service's annual
    budget. But what we do agree on, and I think you will probably
    hear it echoed from all of us this morning, what we agree on is
    putting an end to the unsustainable practice of fire borrowing.
    We know that we cannot continue to fight fires by diverting
    funds from other parts of the Forest Service budget, and we
    agree with you there.
        That is why last year we worked so hard to include wildfire
    provisions in the Omnibus, and I think that they were proposals
    that were responsible and they were pragmatic. It included $1.6
    billion for fire suppression which is $600 million above the
    average cost of fighting wildfire over the past ten years. It
    included $545 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and it
    also included $360 million for the Forest Service timber
    program which will help us begin to resume active management of
    our forests.
        So barring a truly record setting fire season this year,
    fire borrowing should not be an issue for the rest of this
    fiscal year. That gives us some time here to advance
    legislation that addresses wildfire budgeting and how we manage
    our forests. We need to do both at once because we know the
    wildfire problem is not just a budgeting problem, it is also a
    management problem.
        High up-front costs, long planning horizons and regulatory
    requirements, including what seem like an unending
    environmental review process, are impeding our ability to
    implement treatments at the pace and the scale that wildfires
    are occurring. We must also work with our state agencies, local
    communities and the public to increase community preparedness
    and install fire breaks to break up fuel connectivity to keep
    fires small.
        As you know, we have a vested interest in my state to make
    sure that we are doing this right. About half of the 10 million
    acres that burned in last year's fire season were in Alaska. We
    have already had our second wildfire this year in the state.
    This is what, March 8th? And we have already had our second.
        So know Chief, that I am eager to work with you as well as
    the other members of this Committee and other Committees that
    have a role on this issue. I know that we all agree that we
    have some real challenges here that will only grow worse if we
    fail to address them. I look forward to working with you to
    address these challenges and others.
        With that I will turn to Senator Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    Chief, for coming today to discuss the budget.
        As you know, in 2014 Washington experienced the largest and
    worst fire in our state history, the Carlton Complex. In 2015,
    as we were still recovering from the Carlton Complex,
    Washington was hit hard again, this time even harder, and
    experienced the worst fire season in the history of our state.
    In one month more than one million acres of Washington burned.
    That is an area larger than the size of the State of Rhode
    Island.
        Adding to economic loss and the loss of homes and
    businesses, we experienced tragic loss of life. Three
    firefighters were killed and another was severely burned in an
    entrapment. The Colville Tribe lost 20 percent of its timber.
    That was about $1 billion worth of timber.
        I spent last summer traveling the state, meeting with
    firefighters and residents to talk about everything from the
    evacuation process to the loss of their homes to numerous
    things that policy makers can do to help so that fewer homes
    burn down, so that we keep our firefighters safe, and to
    decrease the intensity of these fires so that they can be
    better managed.
        I appreciate that the Committee and my colleague, Senator
    Barrasso, attended a field hearing in Seattle to talk about
    these issues as well. All of this underscores the importance of
    addressing these issues and getting the right solutions.
        We need to better protect our communities and our
    firefighters from these wildfires. Guided by science, we need
    to invest in and pursue the policies that will make our forests
    more resilient to these wildfires. We need more equipment and
    more efficient use of existing resources to have a more hasty
    response to the initial attack of these fires.
        Fortunately, as you can see from the chart behind me--my
    colleague, Senator Murkowski, mentioned the Forest Service had
    a 60 percent increase in firefighting funding for this year,
    giving us a window to come up with a functional solution. We
    certainly appreciate the work of my colleagues in getting that
    60 percent increase.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I know that Chairwoman Murkowski's state also experienced
    one of its worst fire seasons in Alaska's history, and we have
    been working together for months to try to get ahead of this
    problem.
        We have had several hearings where we have talked about the
    need for different solutions to get different results.
    Particularly we need a better fire preparedness strategy.
    Better fire preparedness will reduce the risk posed to
    communities and our forests and reduce the cost to our nation.
        Some of these estimates are that we could be spending
    anywhere between $2 and $4 billion a year for the next several
    years, given the changes that we are seeing in conditions. We
    need to start--obviously, once we get the Energy bill done--to
    focus on this issue and come up with legislation that will help
    all our communities. I believe that legislation should set key
    priorities of preparedness.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We must increase our communities' preparedness through
    activities such as hazardous fuel reduction, fire wise
    programs, changing the time and function of prescribed burns,
    and risk mapping.
        We also need to improve the efficiency of our operations by
    making sure aircraft are available when needed and improving
    the safety of our firefighters. For us in the Northwest, it
    means getting a better Doppler system just to forecast weather
    conditions, since we have a blind spot right in the central
    part of our state.
        We can invest in and prioritize fuel treatments that we
    know make a difference in at risk areas such as prescribed
    burns and mechanical thinning. I hope that we will, in the
    future, talk a lot about ideas to be very innovative on this.
    To me it makes no sense to talk about what you do after the
    fire has happened. We should be talking about what we can do to
    minimize the risk to everyone, and specifically, the $2 to $4
    billion cost we are looking at each year from these fires.
        The funding that was awarded last week to groups in
    Washington through the Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration
    Partnership is a great example of this. Thank you. It will help
    at-risk communities with fire preparedness in places like
    Kittitas, Chelan, and Okanogan Counties.
        Finally, we can increase our use of technology, including
    unmanned aerial vehicles and GPS, so we can more accurately see
    the locations of spot fires so that firefighters in the
    community can be sent out to help.
        I look forward to working out the remaining details with
    many of the members of this Committee, and certainly Chairwoman
    Murkowski, as we try to bring together legislative solutions
    here.
        Turning to Secure Rural Schools, if I could for a moment, I
    want to express my concern in the delay in the distribution of
    the 2015 Secure Rural Schools payments. These 2015 payments
    still have not been distributed to communities. The fiscal
    years of counties in Washington begin in a few months. I can't
    imagine some of these counties trying to plan their annual
    budget not knowing how much they are going to get from the
    Forest Service.
        In Skamania County, the Secure Rural Schools payments
    represent more than 15 percent of their budget, so these
    payments pay the salaries of more than half of Skamania
    County's 65 employees. So for our rural and timber communities
    these are very serious issues.
        I noticed there was not a lot of detail in the
    Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Secure Rural
    Schools program but nonetheless, I look forward to working with
    you and the Chairwoman and members of this Committee, including
    Senator Wyden, over the coming months to extend this crucial
    program.
        I also want to thank you, Chief Tidwell, for last week's
    announcement concerning recreational permits. I completely
    agree that we need to be finding ways to streamline the Forest
    Service process in order to make it easier for more young
    people to get outdoors.
        I know Secretary Jewell announced a similar proposal across
    all Interior lands programs and it was right here in this room
    at last year's budget hearing when you and I talked about the
    problems with the YMCA of Greater Seattle and the Forest
    Service. I am delighted to hear that you and Secretary Jewell
    are embarking on what, I think, is a very significant process
    to make it easier for young people, like those served by the
    YMCA, to move through the current permit process and open the
    doors to hundreds of young people and organizations.
        So despite the good points, there are gaps in this year's
    budget request, and we should work to address these. We can do
    more to work together on recreational access.
        Small businesses in my state that rely on the recreational
    economy are confused about some of the priorities in the
    budget. For example, the Forest Service is proposing to cut
    road maintenance and is currently exploring ways to close some
    of the major recreational routes in my state. We are going to
    hear loudly from people on this, so I intend to ask a question
    and get some details on that.
        In the same budget, the agency is proposing significant
    increases in building new roads, so people are trying to
    understand the need to build new roads versus the backlog of
    maintenance of existing roads, without much of an explanation.
    We want to understand how we can be sure that these priorities
    are met on both sides.
        I want to take a point of personal privilege, if I could,
    and conclude my remarks by recognizing the passing of my
    cousin, Shelia Cantwell. She was, like many of the Forest
    Service employees, dedicated to her career. She served 23 years
    in the Forest Service working for the Mount Whitney Ranger
    Station in Lone Pine, California.
        Like many other people in the Forest Service, they do their
    work. They love their job. I want to thank all the people of
    the Forest Service for their hard work and dedication.
        I turn back to you, Senator Murkowski.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Know that we too
    share the support for the good people who work for us and
    recognize your family member as well.
        Chief Tidwell, welcome again to the Committee. Thank you
    for being here, and we look forward to your testimony.
        I do not know, Mr. Dixon, if you will also be presenting
    comments this morning, or if you are here in a supporting role,
    which we appreciate as the Director of Strategic Planning for
    Budget and Accountability at the U.S. Forest Service. So thank
    you for being here as well.
        With that, Chief, if you would like to proceed.

     STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Tidwell. Well Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    members of the Committee, I do appreciate the chance to be up
    here to be able to discuss our 2017 budget request.
        Our request for '17 is very similar to what we had in '16
    which requires us to make some really tough decisions--with
    basically a flat budget. This request will allow us to continue
    to increase our pace and scale to restore the nation's forests
    and grasslands by treating another 2.9 million acres to restore
    forest health and forest resiliency and improve watershed
    conditions.
        It also allows us to decommission 2,000 miles of unneeded
    roads, restore over 3,400 miles of streams and improve the
    overall function on 22 different watersheds and with one of the
    key outputs from this work, 3.2 billion board feet of timber.
        It maintains our 23 CFLRP projects and allows us to
    continue to work with the states to expand getting work done
    through the Farm bill authorities and with the Good Neighbor
    Authority.
        It also allows us to continue to reduce the threat to
    firefighters and communities by treating 1.6 million acres of
    the highest priority areas of the wildland urban interface
    (WUI) to reduce hazardous fuels, plus another 400,000 acres
    that are outside of the WUI.
        Through our state and private programs, we're focused on
    using a landscape-scale restoration approach that allows our
    state foresters to be able to look at larger landscapes and
    accomplish multiple objectives by having a combination of
    funds.
        And with our Research and Development programs, we're going
    to continue to do our work to be able to understand what we
    need to do to be able to restore forests, to address the
    invasives and insect and disease outbreaks, to continue our
    work to be able to find ways to expand current markets and
    develop new markets for wood, and to be able to make use of the
    biomass that just has to be removed from our landscapes for us
    to be able to restore our healthy forests.
        We also provide for an adequate level of fire suppression,
    to be able to deal with fires and continue to suppress fires
    where we need to and, at the same time, be able to manage fires
    in the back country. We'll have 21 large air tankers, 300-plus
    helicopters, over 1,000 engines and of course, our hot shot
    crews.
        The thing I need to stress, and I appreciate the support
    from this Committee, is finding a solution to paying for the
    cost of fire suppression. I appreciate the additional money
    that was provided in FY16 into the FLAME account, but I think
    we all have seen what happens with the FLAME account and where
    that will help us this one year, it is not a solution.
        We just have to find a way to be able to permanently stop
    the transfer, the disruption of our work every fall. We need to
    find an alternative to the ten-year average. That just no
    longer is working. It's not a viable budget approach.
        And we need to, I think, come to agreement, understanding
    that there is one or two percent of these fires that occur
    every year that really are a natural disaster and they should
    be funded as a natural disaster.
        So we are anxious to be able to work with this Committee
    and work with the House to be able to find a solution so that
    once and for all we can actually stop this disruptive practice
    and allow us to really focus on what the public needs, to be
    able to give the Committees, the Appropriators, some discretion
    so they don't have to use up all of their discretion to be able
    to pay for fires.
        One key note. From just FY15 to FY17 in our proposed FY17
    budget, the ten-year average goes up another $237 million.
    That's what we're up against. And what drives these costs, the
    primary driver is homes in the wildland urban interface. That
    along with the changing conditions, our fire seasons are 68
    days longer. It's a good two to three months longer than what
    we had ten years ago. Those things are not going to change.
        We can make a difference by reducing the hazardous fuels.
    We can reduce the severity of fires. We can make it safer for
    our firefighters, for our communities, but it's going to take a
    combination of fixing the budget and allowing us to then be
    more proactive to get out in front of this. It's one of the
    best job creators we have to restore our forests.
        So I appreciate the time you've given me this morning. I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Chief.
        Know that Senator Cantwell and I had hoped that March would
    be the month that we would really be able to focus on spending
    a lot of time, both in and out of Committee, on the wildfire
    piece. I think we are pushed back a little bit because of
    trying to get this energy bill across the finish line, but know
    that I certainly remain committed to trying to figure this out
    for the long-term rather than taking a year by year approach.
        I want to begin my questions with the Tongass and the issue
    that I raised in my opening statement about this transition to
    young growth without first completing a stand level inventory
    of the young growth.
        Last year the Forest Service provided approximately $4
    million from its budget for the transition framework. About $2
    million has gone to start work on young growth inventory
    studies. So far, I understand about $4 to $6 million more is
    likely needed for the studies and additional inventory work.
    The interesting thing is both the timber industry and the
    environmental groups agree that this work is needed to
    basically prove this out.
        Can you give me information this morning in terms of how
    much funding you are proposing to spend to support young growth
    transition and where the money is coming from, because we just
    do not see it listed in the budget proposal, despite this being
    a secretary-mandated initiative?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Madam Chair, the budget funding we'll be
    spending this year to be able to continue the stand level
    inventory is just part of the funding that we've allocated to
    the region. So with this--
        The Chairman. So do you take it from other parts within the
    Forest Service budget allocated for Alaska?
        Mr. Tidwell. It's part of the funding that we receive from
    our forest products to be able to do forest stand inventory.
    And so that's part of the budget that Region 10 is receiving to
    be able to do that work with a cost share agreement with the
    State of Alaska, working with the state forester, to be able to
    do that stand level inventory so that we are developing
    information for project implementation.
        Stand level inventory is not information that's needed to
    be able to amend the forest plan but for us to be able to move
    forward with the design of projects into the future because
    this transition is going to occur in the out years. It's not
    occurring today.
        But we are moving forward with that. And so we're going to
    continue to not only do the stand level inventory, but we're
    also doing wood quality studies from our research and
    development folks so that we have a better understanding about
    where's the potential markets for the future for young growth
    wood, that type of wood that will come off of these young
    growth forests.
        In addition to that, we're continuing to do our study about
    how to better understand how to thin out these forests. We've
    been doing a lot of commercial thinning over the years in the
    second growth stands. And we've had a study that's been going
    on for ten years. And we want to continue to do that so that we
    better understand how to manage these stands as we move
    forward.
        The Chairman. Let me ask then, because I am concerned that
    if you have not specifically allocated within the budget
    funding for these inventory studies, you are just taking it out
    of the region's accounts. Again, where we see things short-
    changed.
        We had a conversation just last year about how the
    recreation funding within Alaska, within our region, had
    effectively been cut back dramatically when you put it side-by-
    side to what was going on within the rest of the country. We
    have asked that be rectified and that is another question that
    I have for you because I cannot tell that it has been.
        Again, it speaks to the issue. If you have not allocated
    more for this inventory and you have at least three independent
    analyses that say that the current young growth stands are too
    small, that there are too few to support a local manufacturing
    industry, how can you make a plausible determination that we
    can do this transition?
        I am looking at this, recognizing how long it takes to do
    this study and the cost associated with it, and I am not seeing
    it specifically in your budget. So the question this morning is
    whether or not the Forest Service will consider postponing this
    transition until we have a complete, young growth inventory and
    a financial analysis that are completed in order to determine
    whether or not a transition is even feasible?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, it's essential that we move forward
    and complete the amendment to the forest plan.
        The Chairman. But don't we have to have the study and the
    money?
        Mr. Tidwell. Not for a forest plan amendment, no. It's been
    two decades.
        The Chairman. So then you have a forest plan amendment that
    is not based on a strong, sound analysis or the science to
    support it.
        Mr. Tidwell. Two decades of controversy and litigation
    around old growth harvest and roadless, and that's gotten us
    nowhere.
        The Chairman. I understand that.
        Mr. Tidwell. This is--
        The Chairman. But you still have to know that it is
    possible to get to a second growth industry because we cannot
    make those trees grow any faster. That is our problem.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well part of it is to also develop new markets
    for the second growth. And we're working together with
    Sealaska, with Mental Health Trust and the State of Alaska.
        The Chairman. New markets are good, Chief, but you still
    have to have trees that are mature enough to harvest.
        I am going to try to be more respectful of everybody's five
    minutes because last hearing I was very generous with folks. I
    am going to try to keep to the five minutes so we can get to
    everyone's questions.
        I am going to turn to Senator Cantwell now, because I will
    have another opportunity. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chief, you mentioned a couple of things when you were
    talking about getting at the front end of the problem and the
    costs. You are saying homes in the WUI, the wildland urban
    interface, and changing of conditions. I am assuming you are
    talking about weather and climate change.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. Do you think that an increased
    preparedness strategy, with treatments such as prescribed burns
    and fuel reduction, would yield dividends in this process? And
    do you think that ten-year stewardship contracts have been
    successful? Do you think that long-term contracts, if we work
    out the scoring and cancellation ceilings, makes things more
    predictable for companies bidding on prevention work? And you
    mentioned product value. What do you think of cross-laminated
    timber as being something in that mix of solutions?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, the work we've been doing over
    the years is making a difference, and we have dozens to
    probably hundreds of examples now where we have thinned out our
    forests and it has reduced the threat. It's made it easier for
    us to suppress the fires, made it safer for our firefighters.
    So that combination of doing a mechanical thinning, timber
    harvest and using prescribed burns is making a difference to
    reduce the overall threat.
        In addition to the stewardship contracts, they have proven
    to be a very, very effective tool, not only to build more
    trust, more support for the work, but it provides that
    certainly, especially the longer-term, seven- to ten-year
    contracts. It provides a certainty for operators then to make
    the investments, they can get the loans because they know that
    the work is there, and it's making a difference.
        Do we need to look to find ways to make that easier for not
    only the operator but at times for the agency? Yes, I'm
    interested in being able to do that.
        Our biggest challenge right now is to be able to accelerate
    the work, expand the work in a way. And the problem that I have
    and I think it goes back to the Chair's, Madam Chair's comment.
    I'd love to be up here asking for more money. I'd like to have
    more money.
        I can make a strong case to be asking for an increase in
    our forest products budget, a strong case for our recreation
    budget. But once again, any increase the Forest Service sees in
    the budget goes into the cost of fire suppression and that is a
    burden we just can no longer bear.
        Senator Cantwell. Well if I could ask about that, Chief,
    because I think the research I have is that 88 percent of the
    Forest Service's fuel treatments were effective at stopping
    wildfires that burned in FY15. So what I would like is to get
    from the Forest Service an analysis of what you think a robust
    program on preparedness and fuel reduction would look like in
    reducing wildfire losses even if they are just guesstimates
    because we don't know. I think the Carlton Complex Fire that
    burned over 100,000 acres in an afternoon is an example of how
    we never know when something like that is going to happen.
        But with 88 percent effectiveness with fuel reductions, why
    can't we look at what an aggressive program would be and come
    up with some estimates on how--if we are predicting between $2
    and $4 billion a year in cost to the Federal Government for
    suppression--what percentage reduction might we see in that
    cost?
        Again, I know that there is a little bit of guesswork here
    because you don't know everything, like the weather, but it
    seems to me that we need to get a better understanding of this.
        Do you think that more than ten year contracts are needed?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, I definitely, I think it's one of the
    best products that we have. And the more of those that we can
    get in place, the better off we're all going to be. So it's one
    of the things we'd like to continue to expand.
        We're doing about 30 percent of our work now through
    stewardship contracting, but I would definitely like to see
    more of these long-term contracts.
        Senator Cantwell. And did you say something about cross-
    laminated timber (CLT)? Did you comment on that as a valued
    product?
        Mr. Tidwell. On CLT?
        Senator Cantwell. Yes.
        Mr. Tidwell. It's another one of the efforts that we have
    from our forest products lab to be able to develop new markets.
    And currently we have two plants in the United States that are
    using CLT. One of those plants is having to import their
    material.
        This is a great opportunity for us to be able to expand to
    be able to use the small-diameter material as CLT for tall
    buildings. CLT is one of the things we're trying to encourage
    engineers and architects to use in tall buildings.
        It's CLTs. That product is what allows us to be able to
    build these tall buildings and we're moving forward with a
    couple of examples of those to be able to show people that wood
    is a good tall building material.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chief Tidwell, it is good to see you again.
        I have some concerns, serious concerns, about the way that
    the Forest Service is prioritizing its management objectives.
    The budget makes it clear the Forest Service values expansion
    of costly counterproductive programs, as I see it, much more
    than actual maintenance and management of current assets.
        The funding increases for new roads, for land acquisitions
    while funding for capital improvement and maintenance, road
    maintenance, timber products, remains level or actually goes
    down a bit. It seems that the Forest Service should reevaluate
    its priorities. Not only would investment in active management
    and maintenance of current assets lower the future maintenance
    backlog, but I think it would actually help improve the forest
    user's experience, forest health, watershed health and help
    decrease the incidence and severity of the catastrophic
    wildfires that we are all concerned about.
        So I just want you, if you could, to please explain how you
    justify adding this administrative staff, new lands, new roads,
    when the Forest Service currently has about a $5 billion
    maintenance backlog of projects and is really unable, at this
    point, to address these within the current priority structure.
        Mr. Tidwell. With our request for LWCF funding which is, I
    think, it's very close to what we've received for the last few
    years. Once again, it's targeted on acquiring those key
    properties. A lot of it is to provide access to be able to
    guarantee access to the public.
        And once again, the cases that I've personally dealt with,
    every time we've acquired those lands it actually reduces our
    administrative costs. It allows us to do much larger projects.
    We don't have to worry about boundary management, so it's
    really an investment. And it's something that the public is
    very, very interested in us acquiring these key parcels.
        With our roads' budget, the request is less than what we
    received last year. I wish we could ask for more, but when we
    have to look at finding that additional funding in a
    constrained budget to be able to put it into fire suppression,
    something has to give.
        And I'll tell you there are very difficult choices that we
    have to make. And so that's one of the few areas that actually
    went down in our request between '16 and '17. But you also see
    that we're asking for additional money in the cost of fire
    suppression. That's what we're up against.
        Senator Barrasso. I want to switch to sage grouse.
        Last September the Forest Service, Department of the
    Interior, announced Federal landscape-scale conservation plans
    for the Greater Sage Grouse habitat with 11 Western states
    impacted. The plans are controversial. Given the successful
    conservation work that has already been undertaken in states
    like Wyoming, with our special management plans, five months
    have now passed since the announcement and yet to my knowledge
    agency personnel on the ground in Wyoming still do not have
    guidance documents about how or when the agency intends to
    implement the plans.
        It has not stopped the agency though from stating that
    seasonal uses like razing on local forests may change. So how
    is it possible that the agency staff can notify permittees that
    agency policy might change when they really have not yet even
    received guidance documents?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, what we're starting now is to
    actually have state-wide meetings to be able to meet with folks
    throughout the state and to be able to talk about how to move
    forward with this.
        We have, like, a two to three year period of time, and so
    we want to focus on what are the changes that we can make?
    Where can we apply the investments we want to make to be able
    to improve sage grouse habitat and at the same time to work
    with permittees about how they can modify their operations over
    the next three years to be able to mitigate some of the
    impacts?
        The Forest Service, we've--we're going to put over $7
    million into habitat improvement projects. And then with our
    FY17 budget request, we'll actually increase that, along with
    all of the money that the Bureau of Land Management is
    spending. But our plan here is to be able to work with folks to
    be able to address these issues.
        Your state has just done an excellent job to be able to put
    the information together. And so, we're optimistic that, give
    us a few years, we'll be able to, you know, mitigate the
    impacts, improve sage grouse habitat, but at the same time,
    ensure the ongoing uses are still there.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, and that is my concern in terms of
    the--I have been to Wyoming the last couple of weekends hearing
    specifically about that, asking that you communicate more
    clearly with permittees, with the agency personnel, in the
    Governor's office because you are right, Wyoming has done an
    exceptional job. It has been highlighted as a place that has
    done it right, and we do not want to compromise the hard work
    being done in Wyoming and other Western states to conserve the
    sage grouse.
        So, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chief Tidwell, welcome back.
        I want to start with the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program (CFLRP). We have a couple of projects in
    New Mexico that have done some really great thinning work. It
    is a tool in the toolbox that is working for all the things
    that we say we want to do on our forests.
        We are about seven years into the program, and I am
    starting to get questions from collaborators about how to
    continue the progress that we have been able to make in these
    forests. And for mills, in particular, as you know, three years
    is just not a lot of time or certainty.
        So I wanted to ask you, do you support an extension of
    CFLRP or maybe a second round of authorization of projects and
    how can communities that have successfully implemented these
    projects make sure that the work continues after the end of the
    authorized collaborative project?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, in our '17 budget request we
    continue the funding for the 23 projects we have ongoing. And
    then also for out here we want to expand that to be able to
    expand the program, both financially but also to be able to add
    additional projects.
        We're to that point where we also need to be thinking about
    how to extend this beyond the original ten years. And so it's
    something that will take legislative action to be able to add
    additional projects, expand the funding that's available, but
    also to be able to extend this. And I look forward to working
    with the Committee to find ways for us to do that.
        Senator Heinrich. I look forward to working with you,
    Chief, to make sure we do extend that program and working with
    my colleagues. As I said, this is a program that is effectively
    thinning our forests, doing it right and with enormous
    community support, and we need to use those tools that are
    working.
        On an issue a little more geographically specific to New
    Mexico, in Western New Mexico, the Zuni Mountains Trails
    Partnership has been working now for many, many years to build
    out a mountain bike and other trail system in the Cibola
    National Forest, outside of Gallup. After several years of
    delays, we were expecting a final environmental assessment (EA)
    on this project last December but it was further delayed until
    this spring.
        Recreation is one of the growing sectors in this part of
    the state, particularly in this forest. The counties and other
    partners have committed to working to contribute funding to
    actually build trails, so we just need the Forest Service to
    get a final decision in place so that this can move forward.
    Can you commit to me today that we are going to see that final
    EA next month as was expected?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, it's my understanding we'll get
    it done this year. I'll have to get back to you as to just how
    soon, but I'm not sure we'll have it done next month. But we'll
    get back to you with a date. But I'm confident, from what I've
    been told, that we'll get it done this year.
        Senator Heinrich. The timeline on this has slipped and
    slipped and slipped. And you know, it is an example of where
    you have counties, you have businesses, you have the local
    forest, all working together on something that has the
    potential to really build a lot of trust and be an example, a
    successful example.
        It is really quite frustrating when these timelines slip
    without the facts on the ground changing. This year is a little
    disappointing because this is not the first time. I have heard
    this timeline slip multiple times now, and it is certainly
    frustrating for the local communities.
        We will follow up with you on that, but I would certainly
    hope that this would finally be done next month. I am aware of
    no reason it should not be done next month. No new information,
    no major changes in direction. So I look forward to following
    up with you and getting more specifics. I hope that this can
    happen a little sooner than that.
        Mr. Tidwell. I do too.
        Senator Heinrich. One last thing.
        There have been some ongoing efforts to address the
    permitting issue. That is something I have got a lot of
    experience with as a former outfitter guide myself. That was
    covered by our Ranking Member.
        Can you talk, just a little bit, about your efforts there
    because I think this is incredibly important to streamline this
    process and make it easier to get our constituents out in these
    forests whether they are doing that with an outfitter guide or
    a YMCA or a non-profit.
        Mr. Tidwell. We have been going through our process that we
    currently use to authorize outfitters and guides to be able to
    look at how we can do a better job to streamline that, make it
    a lot easier on our outfitters and guides.
        In addition to that we're also looking at how we can change
    our current policies so to allow those non-commercial groups to
    be able to go out without a permit. It's one of the things that
    we're working on in conjunction with the Department of the
    Interior to be able to make it a lot easier for the non-
    commercial groups, the church groups, the city groups, the Ys,
    et cetera, and to be able to facilitate that to encourage more
    people to get out. So I'm really excited about the progress
    that we're making, and we're going to start implementing that
    this year.
        Senator Heinrich. I am very glad to hear that.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Chief
    Tidwell.
        I have said before that the construction and maintenance of
    adequate pipeline, we were talking about, Senator Heinrich was
    talking about pipeline. I am talking about a different pipeline
    capacity.
        In the State of West Virginia we have got this shale gas
    boom in the Marcellus and Utica area we want to maximize the
    obvious potential there. But I want to ask you about the Forest
    Service involvement in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    (FERC) process.
        As you know the Forest Service is the coordinating agency
    but thanks to Chairman Murkowski and the base techs, the energy
    bill includes my provision on streamlining the natural gas
    permitting which would designate FERC as the lead agency to
    make, hopefully, the process move more quickly and more
    smoothly. Currently I do not think the process is moving as it
    should. I am hearing that there are excessive delays in the
    process and that the Forest Service is part of the problem.
        Some of the problems are getting permission to survey to
    get on the ground data to find a suitable route, getting the
    Forest Service staff to review the data and then provide
    feedback in a reasonable amount of time, and then to determine
    if an amendment is needed to the Land Management and Resource
    Plan. These are just some of the major areas. My question to
    you is does the Forest Service have adequate resources to
    complete its part of the process in a timely manner? If not,
    what does the Forest Service need?
        Mr. Tidwell. We have adequate resources. If we had a larger
    staff, similar to what we had, you know, ten years ago, we'd be
    able to be more responsive. We'd be able to work a little bit
    faster.
        But when it comes to a pipeline, the issues come from the
    public. The public's concern about the placement, the
    maintenance of pipelines. They want to be assured that it's
    going to be constructed in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary
    impacts to resources and that it is also constructed in a way
    that it is safe.
        So we work with the companies. And ideally if the companies
    would come in and we have the upfront discussions about where
    they propose to put that pipeline. And so we can share the
    information that we have about the geology, et cetera, so that
    we can quickly eliminate certain areas that are going to be
    potentially problematic, certain areas that are very
    environmentally sensitive and to be able to route the pipeline
    around those.
        That's how the process works, and we're making good
    progress. Ideally I wish that we could just, at the very start,
    come together and share all that information. And that's one of
    the things that we're trying to do a better job. So that when
    we hear about a proposal is to quickly sit down with a
    proponent and to be able to share our information and to be
    able to find that, the right route, for the pipeline. So we can
    quickly go through the analysis and be able to make the
    decision so that they, working with FERC, so they can go ahead.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        I do not disagree with anything that you have said here. I
    think that you have said quickly three times and I think that
    is the basis of my question is the timeliness of the decision.
    It is not disputing that there are problem areas or there are
    sensitive areas that you, as foresters, know and precisely
    would enumerate to the companies and to the general public.
    That is not the dispute.
        I think it is just trying to streamline the process. These
    are difficult, difficult issues in certain areas, and that is
    understandable. I would just ask you if maybe there is a way to
    make the process actually move quickly within in a timeframe
    that works? I tried to get timelines in there but I could not
    quite get them all the way into the bill.
        My second question is, as you know, two-thirds of the
    nation's forests are in state and private forests. The
    Stewardship Program is providing assistance to our state
    foresters, and 90 percent of those plans are successfully
    implemented.
        As a byproduct of those plans, forests that are owned by
    individuals and states provide almost 50 percent of the
    nation's wood supply. My question is why is the Administration
    proposing to increase agency fuel management and forest
    management budgets for Federal lands and yet decreasing the
    funding in the Stewardship Program?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, we're not decreasing that
    funding. We have moved some of the funding that's been in that
    account into what we call our landscape scale restoration
    account which allow the state foresters to be able to use those
    funds for forest health, for stewardship, for urban and
    community forestry. And they can have those funds together. So
    they can look at larger scale projects and not be limited to
    just looking at one piece of the problem there.
        So actually, feedback we're getting from our state
    foresters when we started this program last year is that they
    liked it. Yeah, they have to compete for it, but the ones that
    are quick to be able to see how they compete, especially the
    work with their neighbors, they're able to compete well for
    these funds and actually get more work done.
        So our overall funding stayed the same, we just are
    proposing to add additional funding then to the landscape scale
    restoration account.
        Senator Capito. So the LSR, the Landscape Scale
    Restoration, is competitively built? There is no minimum amount
    that each state forester would get or anything of that nature?
        I am over my time.
        Mr. Tidwell. They compete for that. They compete for that.
        Senator Capito. Alright, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chief, this effort to end fire borrowing seems like the
    longest running battle since the Trojan War. I mean, we have
    been at this since before I was Chair of this Committee.
    Shorthand, this is about raiding the prevention fund in order
    to fight fire.
        Now I was very pleased that our Chair, Senator Murkowski,
    has talked about this. Senator Cantwell talked about it. I
    think everybody in this room knows getting to yes on forestry
    policy is a really heavy lift.
        It is a real challenge and you have got to have a
    bipartisan approach. I think by way of trying to get this going
    this year, Chief, how important is it to you to have the
    bipartisan leadership of this Committee get with the bipartisan
    leadership in the House, to start working with all of you? So
    we are going through the regular order. We are using the
    Committees, the bipartisan leadership here, bipartisan
    leadership in the House, but we're going to get out of the
    gates. We are now at, I think, 20 bipartisan Senate co-
    sponsors, 145 bipartisan members of the House, 260 groups, and
    I just want to find a way, working with my colleagues, with the
    bipartisan leadership of both bodies, to get this going.
        How important is it to you that that start quickly?
        Mr. Tidwell. You know, Senator, it's essential. And it's
    not just for me. This is essential for the American public.
    Almost every question that I get asked, and they're all very
    good questions, I would have a different answer if we would
    have been able to fix this a few years ago.
        When I think about the additional funding we've had to keep
    putting into this ten-year average and I think about what could
    we do with another $237 million to be able to address the
    recreation needs, the roads' needs, to be proactive with forest
    management, to address more hazardous fuels. I understand how
    difficult this is, but it's essential we find a solution.
        When I asked our folks last year, I said, what happens if
    we don't? If this keeps going in 2025, 67 percent of our budget
    will be for fire. Last year when I was up here we were talking
    50 percent. In FY16, it was actually 56 percent.
        I--there's got to be a solution, and I really appreciate
    all the hard work that's gone into it. And I understand it's
    difficult because if it was easy it would have been done a
    long, long time ago. But it's essential that we find a way, you
    know. And we are committed to work with the Senate. We'll work
    with the House, to be able to find a solution.
        Your bill, definitely, is one of those solutions. There's
    other good ideas out there too, and we're committed to be able
    to work with that to find something that's actually durable.
        You know, you passed the FLAME Act a few years ago. I was
    up here applauding that. It looked good. It didn't work for a
    lot of good reasons.
        So I appreciate the Ranking Member's, excuse me, the
    Chair's comment about this needs to be durable. We've been at
    it for a long time, so let's find a way to be able to do it so
    that it isn't something we revisit in a couple of years.
        Senator Wyden. Well I appreciate that answer, and you
    clearly indicated that you are open to a variety of approaches.
        As the Chair noted and something that I have long agreed
    with, we have got to have active management. There is no
    question about that.
        We also have to find a way to get this done because this
    makes a mockery out of the Forest Service budget which is
    probably a little bit more colorful way to say what you have
    been saying and other people in the Forest Service have been
    saying for years.
        So we are going to do everything we can, through the
    leadership on both sides of the Capitol, to work with you and
    to get this done. I know Senator Crapo, who has been with me on
    this, feels the same way.
        One last point to use up the rest of my time. I want to
    thank you for the good work that your folks have been doing in
    Portland. They have done some exceptional work that, as you
    know, involves tree moss, and we have had some really serious
    public health questions.
        I live in Southeast Portland. It is not directly in my
    neighborhood, but it is not that far away, and people are
    really concerned about the risk of these toxic metals that
    relate to industrial work done in the community. It looks like
    there are some big gaps in EPA clean air laws. They look to me
    like gaps the size of a lunar crater. But none of it really
    would have come to light without the ground breaking research
    that your people have done, so I am almost out of time but are
    you going to need additional funds in order to continue this
    research into the future?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, it's just another example of how
    important our research and development branch is to be able to
    develop the science, to do the studies, to be able to not only
    identify problems but more important, to find those solutions.
    And it's one of the things that I think it's essential that we
    find ways to be able to maintain a research and development
    budget.
        When I look at where we were back in the mid-80's, and we
    had like over 1,100 scientists and we have much, over less than
    half of that today. Our scientists are doing a better job to be
    working with universities, et cetera, but it just shows you
    really the power of the benefit of science.
        So this is one example to identify a problem. But I can
    tell you, it's also, it leads us to finding a solution. To be
    able to use vegetation, to be able to use our forests to
    provide that clean air, that clean water. That is the solutions
    that come out of science.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden. Know that there is
    a great deal of commitment for that bipartisan, bicameral
    effort to find the enduring and durable solution.
        Senator Flake.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chief Tidwell.
        The question was asked earlier, are stewardship contracts
    and other activities we have undergone making a difference? I
    can tell you in Arizona, as you have seen and I have seen, they
    have. They have made a difference. We have towns that are still
    there that would not be otherwise, but we obviously have a lot
    of forest to treat. I appreciate you coming to my office in
    January and detailing some of the plans that you have to
    expedite that. The new 4FRI Chief Executive position, that is
    important. A budget increase for Region 3 and more acreage
    designated to existing industry--that is all important.
        Can you talk a little more about--4FRI is the biggest of
    its kind in terms of projects--a Four Forest Restoration
    Initiative? What plans do we have, with the existing contracts
    that we have there and those on the outside, to expedite this
    forest restoration there?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, as you mentioned, you know, 4FRI
    was the first of its kind, to be able to do the analysis of a
    million acres with one document. So now we have 540,000 acres
    that's NEPA-ready for work to be able, under the 4FRI projects.
        So we continue to work with the contractor to be able to
    expand their production. They did have their best month on
    record in December, and they indicate they'll be able to
    continue to expand. That's good.
        But in addition to that we also are moving forward to
    provide additional acres that need to be treated for other
    operators in that state so that we can build on, not only the
    work that's being done by the Good Earth contractor, but also
    to be able to get additional work going. And at the same time
    we've got the rest of your state to worry about.
        The 4FRI was a big project, but it was just a piece of it.
    And so that's the other challenge that we have.
        When we look at some of the additional hazardous fuels
    funding and some changes we've made in our management and cost
    reductions that we've made to be able to dedicate some
    additional funds. But it's going to take multiple operators to
    be able to address the work that needs to be done in your
    state.
        So the things, the changes, that we're making to be able to
    move faster, to be able to use the Farm bill authorities on
    other projects and also be working with the state, potentially
    with Good Neighbor Authority, to be able to expand our current
    work.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Along those lines of allocation and budget priorities, the
    Eastern Arizona Counties Organization has discussed with you a
    detailed list, possible next steps, in terms of forest
    restoration on the east side. How do you plan to use the
    additional money for Region 3 in that regard? Will that be
    dedicating some to the priorities that they have outlined?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. They will also be, look at using some
    enterprise teams to get some of the NEPA done. It's also to be
    able to bring in additional people to be able to put the
    project package together.
        And then also to be able to look at where are some areas
    that we can quickly get into so that we can continue to provide
    the wood that the east side operators need. And at the same
    time, to also move forward on some larger scale projects so
    that they too, can see multiple years of work in front of them
    versus what we'll be able to do in '16 and then have a question
    of well, what's happening in '17?
        It's just another need for these long-term stewardship
    contracts. If we could get a few of those going on the east
    side, then I think we, you and I, would be having a different
    discussion.
        Senator Flake. Thanks.
        As you know Arizona has a long history of planning for
    water needs. We have the Colorado River that supplies a good
    percentage of the water that we utilize, but one of the most
    important sources is the runoff, the watershed that we have in
    our northern forests.
        We asked the Governor and others to put forward some of the
    priorities for the state, and one is to make sure that we treat
    our watershed and are able to realize all the benefits that we
    can from that, all the water, treating Arizona's overly dense
    forest is a big part of that. As you know a healthy forest
    yields up to 25 percent more water than an unhealthy forest.
        Given the Forest Service's experience with NEPA and
    narrowly tailored NEPA solutions and streamlining authorities,
    how can we utilize that? I mean, we have H.R. 2657, the
    Resilient Federal Forests Act, which is intended to help in
    terms of streamlining NEPA. How important is that to you?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well what's important to me is that the
    authorities we have are authorities that are supported across
    the board so we can actually, successfully, implement those.
        I look at the authorities that came out of the Farm bill,
    the work that we're doing with insect and disease, the work
    we're doing with Good Neighbor Authority, that is allowing us
    to be able to expand our work because there's support. Those
    authorities were put together in a way that provides some
    assurances to those that had some questions and concerns about
    forest management but at the same time allowed us to be able to
    reduce some of the paperwork, some of the documentation of
    analysis. So they were very effective.
        As we look forward for any authorities, for me it has to be
    something that provides that level of trust so that we can
    actually use it, because if you don't have that it just creates
    more controversy. What you'll find is that our employees will
    shy away from those verses to use different authorities.
        So that, I think, is our challenge as we go forward. And
    once again, I think, that with the work from the 2014 Farm
    bill, insect and disease designations, those authorities have
    been, they're proving to be, very helpful and we're
    implementing those now.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Warren.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        In recent years the Forest Service budget has been
    dominated by one thing, the cost of fighting wildfires. Two
    decades ago the Forest Service spent about 17 percent of its
    budget on fighting fires. This year firefighting will eat up
    nearly half of the agency's budget plus an additional $800
    million that has been separately proposed for disaster funding.
        Now in large part the costs have increased because the
    number and intensity of fires has increased. Fire season now
    lasts about two and a half months longer than it did in 1970.
    Last year was one of the worst in decades with more than 10
    million acres burning across this country.
        The conditions that produce more wildfires are well known.
    Chief Tidwell, human activities have been driving dramatic
    changes in our climate. Can you describe the impact that
    climate change has had on major wildfires?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, the first one is the length of
    the fire season. And it's not just because the fire season is
    longer. When you have a fire season that's another two and a
    half months longer, it first of all, it allows those fuels to
    dry out that much more because they have another 60 days under
    the sun. And so when we, we not only see fires occurring
    earlier in the year, but then at toward the end of the fire
    season, our fuel moistures are much lower, so the fires burn at
    a higher intensity, cause more damage to watershed and are
    much, much more difficult to suppress. The other things we're
    seeing is just hotter and drier weather. So you've got drier
    fuels, a longer fire season and then you have this hotter,
    drier weather.
        And then the extensive droughts that we're having. We've
    always had droughts in this country, but what we're seeing
    today that the droughts are lasting longer and they're much
    more intense. And so they're causing even more problems. And we
    saw that through the West and we're getting some favorable
    moisture this year but it will take a lot more than one year to
    ever--forests recover from those droughts. So those are the
    things that are contributing.
        There's one other key factor, and that is as we have this
    warmer environment with less of the really harsh, cold winters,
    especially early in the year, the insects and diseases are
    spreading. Our invasives are spreading.
        Emerald Ash Borer is a good example here in the East. It's
    been around here for a while. It stayed pretty much in a few
    states and then as we started to really see the change in the
    climate, it's now been able to make it all the way to Canada.
        That's the other problem that we're dealing with that the
    environmental changes, the climate changes. We're seeing
    they're also creating a very favorable environment for
    invasives.
        Senator Warren. This is very, very troubling because the
    pace of climate change is now accelerating.
        Chief Tidwell, if we cannot make significant progress to
    address climate change, what can we expect about the cost of
    fires in the future?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well the cost of fires are definitely going to
    increase. But what's more problematic is if we can't get out
    and make more changes on the landscape to reduce the fuels, to
    be able to do a better job to build defensible space, we're
    going to continue to lose thousands of homes.
        Last year we talked about the number of acres burned. We
    lost 4,500 homes. On average for the last ten years we lose
    3,000 homes every year in addition to that the lives of our
    firefighters and the lives of our public.
        So we have the opportunity here to be proactive, be able to
    address, you know, changing the landscape so that when the
    fires do occur they're less severe, they're easier to control,
    it's safer for our firefighters, safer for our public. Those
    are the things that we have to work on. And our scientists do
    not see any foreseeable change in the climatic situations we're
    dealing with for the foreseeable future.
        Senator Warren. Thank you.
        You pull it all together there when you talk about the
    acres that we lose, we talk about the homes we lose and we talk
    about the lives that we lose. Obviously we need a real solution
    to fight wildfires, a solution that ensures sufficient funding,
    that keeps environmental protections in place and that provides
    certainty for all of the other Forest Service programs.
        I appreciate the hard work that others on this Committee
    have done to try to come to that solution, but rising wildfire
    costs are just another example of the price we pay if we fail
    to take decisive action on climate change. Unless we take this
    problem seriously, unless we take meaningful steps to end
    reliance on fossil fuels and cut back on greenhouse gas
    emissions, these fires will get worse, we will spend more
    money, we will jeopardize more lives, we will damage more
    critical ecosystems and communities that depend on our nation's
    forests.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chief Tidwell, good to see you here again today. Thank you
    for your testimony. I share your commitment, as well as I know
    many members on this Committee, to solving the wildfire funding
    challenge and increasing active management of our national
    forests.
        I know across many of our national forests, certainly in my
    home State of Montana, habitual litigation from fringe groups,
    who do not represent the majority of the people in Montana,
    have been one of the key barriers to moving forward with active
    management of our forests.
        I recently received updated information from your Region 1
    staff concerning litigation in Montana. I was told there are 21
    active timber lawsuits going on in my state. That to me is
    astonishing, and it is unacceptable.
        I had some students from Libby, Montana, in my office
    recently. They are called the Libby Loggers because of a
    vibrant timber industry up in Northwest Montana. The only folks
    winning today are the lawyers. And I said perhaps they need to
    change the mascot from the Libby Loggers to the Libby Lawyers.
    The lawyers are winning, the loggers are losing, the
    communities are losing, and the environment is losing. They are
    not actively managing a forest.
        I appreciate the comments on the insects and infestations,
    certainly, of the pine beetle and what that is doing. We cannot
    even harvest dead trees oftentimes because we are getting
    challenged by these fringe groups.
        In fact, I just saw a study which showed the Forest Service
    completes more time-consuming environmental impact statements
    than any other Federal agency. I just looked at the report here
    this morning. The Forest Service spends $365 million a year
    complying with Federal laws and regulations.
        My question, Chief Tidwell, as we look at the solution to
    go forward here, as we need to certainly, and I support change
    in the way that wildfires are funded, as well as ensuring that
    we move toward active forest management. I think a big part or
    a big barrier of that is litigation. If Congress provided
    litigation relief and regulatory relief in a way that maintains
    the public trust, is it fair to say the Forest Service would be
    able to get a lot more work accomplished on the ground and
    perhaps in a shorter timeframe?
        Mr. Tidwell. There's definitely projects that are
    litigated. And you know, in the past we definitely had much
    more litigation than we're seeing today. We've also, you know,
    our staff and attorneys are doing a good job to work through
    that backlog. What's even more important is the trend. So like
    last year in Region 10 or excuse me, Region 1, we had seven
    lawsuits and for--and three of those were for our vegetation
    management projects. And we had no preliminary injunctions to
    have to deal with.
        So it's a combination of our folks doing everything they
    need to to be able to work with people and to be able to move
    forward with that. But they have significantly reduced the
    amount of litigation when it comes to forest management and our
    vegetation projects.
        Now the litigation in a lot of the other issues that we're
    dealing with, it's continuing to, actually, it's stayed the
    same or increased.
        So that the solution, as I look at this, and I've spent a
    lot of time dealing with it over my career, is that if we can
    find ways for folks to understand what we're trying to get done
    and to be able to build that trust because so much of the, from
    my view, a lot of the litigation comes from the point that
    people believe that we're trying to do something else verses
    take care of the land.
        Senator Daines. To that point, I have been a supporter of
    the collaborative process, and it is working. It is working
    back home in Montana. However, of the 21 projects under
    litigation, 16 of the 21 were collaboratives where these folks
    show up, who are not at the table working together across
    various stakeholders, NGOs, the timber industry, the community,
    county commissioners, and then these fringe groups show up and
    litigate and challenge these harvests.
        I think we all agree collaborations should be encouraged,
    but I strongly believe more needs to be done to protect the
    collaboratives from this handful of fringe obstructionists who
    repeatedly sue and upend the hard work and frankly,
    demoralizing folks who are trying to find a solution as we
    watch the forest burn in the summertime. We see the declining
    revenues that support our schools and our teachers and just a
    vibrant economy. I just ask that we continue to work together
    to find solutions to incentivize collaborations, to find ways
    to de-incentivize these fringe groups that are litigating a lot
    of these projects.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, I appreciate your support for
    our collaborative efforts and they are making a difference and
    yes, it's extremely frustrating when people have worked
    together, come to agreement on what work needs to occur and
    then you have somebody come in and file a lawsuit. It is
    frustrating.
        I do think the ways to be able to incentivize
    collaboration, and I appreciate the work from Congress over the
    last two years. They recognize that. We see things where they
    want to put it into statute. I really appreciate that level of
    support, because I do think it is making a difference and it's
    really the answer.
        I think that as we build more and more support and we build
    stronger collaboratives, I do think it will also help more
    people to understand really what we're after and to be able to
    build that trust. Because once you have that trust, that's what
    carries these collaboratives and that's what allows us to be
    able to get the work done.
        When I look at the work that's going on in your state over
    the last few years, our employees are doing such an outstanding
    job working with the communities to be able to expand the work
    every year, be able to hit their targets, even with litigation
    that they're still dealing with. In your state it's one of the
    places we probably have as much as anyplace. But they are doing
    an outstanding job and appreciate, once again, your support for
    our collaborative efforts.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chief Tidwell.
        The Chairman. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you very much, Chief, for making the clear connection
    between climate change and the continuing challenges of
    fighting forest fires. I also agree with Senator Daines that
    collaboration is what we want to pursue.
        Every state has forest resources and challenges that
    requires us to work very closely with the Forest Service, and
    then we depend on the expertise and what the Forest Service
    brings to the table. That is why so many of the questions from
    the Committee are very specific to what is going on in our
    states and your activities in those states.
        So in that regard I did want to take a moment to thank you
    for your commitment to protecting Hawaii's precious landscapes
    in the President's 2017 budget. This includes prioritizing
    Hawaii's island forests at risk proposal for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund as well as inclusion of both the O'oma and
    Helemano wilderness area in Hawaii through the Forest Legacy
    Program. As you know, our natural resources in Hawaii are
    facing numerous external threats, and your support in
    conserving these landscapes is very much appreciated.
        I would like to, of course, invite you to visit Hawaii
    sometime to see all of the challenges and opportunities and the
    activities that you are very much engaged in in Hawaii. There
    is nothing like actually visiting a place to gain a fuller, I
    think, appreciation of what is going on.
        I wanted to turn to one of the biggest emergencies that
    Hawaii's native forests are facing right now which is the Rapid
    Ohia Death, a fungal pathogen, in thousands of our native Ohia
    trees which have died. Ohia is significant because this tree
    makes up 80 percent of our native forests and is ecologically
    and culturally the most important native plant in Hawaii. Of
    course, our Ohia forests have a lot to do with our watersheds.
        So one of the ground personnel from the Federal and state
    stakeholders, including the USFS personnel from the Institute
    of Pacific Islands Forestry in Region 5, with state and private
    grants are trying to answer several critical questions about
    this disease including transmission and resistance. We still
    need the resources to do the proper investigations and
    research.
        What can the Forest Service recommend to Hawaii as it
    relates to Rapid Ohia Death based on lessons learned and best
    practices when you have been confronted with other tree
    diseases in other states? And would an incident command
    structure be helpful to identify and direct resources to help
    Hawaii and are there creative ways that we can engage expertise
    across the Forest Service on this topic and what other
    resources may be available for assistance?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, we are working very closely with
    the Agricultural Resource Service and also the University of
    Hawaii to be able to bring all of our resources together to be
    able to, first of all, understand how this is being transmitted
    and to be able, then, to look at some ways to be able to reduce
    the spread of this. We are also doing work to look at genetic
    resistance to be able to find which trees are able to fight off
    this fungus.
        This fungus has been in Hawaii for a while, but it has just
    recently gone into the trees so we need to understand what is
    causing that to occur. It may be just another one of the
    indicators is we see the changing climate that we're seeing,
    you know, things, the fungus has been in our environment for
    many years all of it's starting to start creating a problem.
    We're seeing the same thing with bats, with white nose
    syndrome. So what we're looking at is to be able to bring all
    the resources together to quickly understand what's going on
    and be able to figure out how we can stop this.
        The other thing we need to probably look at is how to stop
    the spread. So if there's some things that we can do to be able
    to get out in front of this.
        I also know that there are some trials that are going on
    with some fungicides that may also prove effective. The problem
    with that is that it's such a large area and that may be very
    helpful in a specific area for a few trees around a person's
    home, et cetera, but to be able to stop this we're going to
    have to, I think, go beyond finding that solution.
        So those are the things we're continuing to work on, and
    there's urgency to be able to quickly get out in front of this.
    But at the same time it's just another example of why our
    research and development program is so important so that we do
    have the scientists, we have the capacity, to be able to
    address these emerging issues.
        Senator Hirono. Do you have enough money in your Fiscal
    Year '17 budget proposal to do the kinds of things that you are
    doing because it is not just happening in Hawaii. These kinds
    of unusual occurrences are happening across the country, I
    would imagine, so you need to have a robust capacity for
    research, tests, what have you. Is there enough money in the
    budget? Well, there is never enough.
        Mr. Tidwell. So I'm pleased that we're able to ask for the
    amount of funding we do have. Yes. And then once again, until
    we fix this wildfire suppression funding situation we're not
    going to be able to be in a position to be able to ask.
        So I do feel that we have an adequate level in our research
    and development. But it's one of the things we need to be aware
    of though, as there's going to be more and more invasives, more
    and more issues. Research and development is definitely an area
    that we need to increase our investment in.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, and I thank the Chairwoman's
    leadership in the wildfire issue.
        The Chairman. I look forward to working with you.
        We will next turn to Senator Cassidy and then Senator Lee.
        Senator Cassidy. Hey, Chief.
        Last September the EPA published an interim recommendation
    for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in
    Federal procurement. The recommendation for lumber defines, I
    think, FSC. You will know that term, but just to define it. The
    Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified and by including
    that but not including it, therefore excludes, if you will, the
    standard forestry initiative, SFI and the ATFS, the American
    Tree Farm System.
        Now first in Louisiana about 85 percent of all of our
    lumber is either SFI or ATFS. I am also told that from the
    National Forest Service land there are about 42,000 jobs
    attributed to the forest products from within NFS lands and
    that the Forest Service does not allow their harvested wood to
    be subjected to a third party standard. So not only are 85
    percent of my foresters excluded but the entirety of the
    National Forest Service is excluded by these EPA standards. I
    am also told that both the SFI and the ATFS have the same sort
    of standards as the FSC, all these initials, I am sorry, but
    that they are just not included.
        Thoughts on that? Why should we allow the National Forest
    Service products to be excluded based on their own rules and
    EPA rules?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, I'm going to have to look into
    this. But there's no question, we support, you know, the SFI,
    the tree farm, the FSC, you know, certifications. It's
    something that's in your state the majority of the private land
    is certified, and so we've always been supportive of that, you
    know. So this is something I'm going to look into but it raises
    the question of potential problems, because when we think about
    clean air and we think about clean water we need to be thinking
    about healthy forests and maintaining our forests.
        So today, you know, our nation's forests, which is the
    majority of them are private land, as in your state, they
    sequester from about 12 to 14 percent of the CO2 that's emitted
    each year. If we lose those forests and if there isn't ways to
    be able to have viable markets for the wood, private landowners
    are going to develop their land for some other use.
        So it's essential that we make sure that we're, things that
    we're considering, it actually helps us to be able to maintain
    forests on the landscape. So this is an issue that I'll look
    into and I'll get back to you on it. But it is problematic when
    there's--when we're looking at things, especially when we're
    concerned about clean air and clean water. We've got to make
    sure that it allows us to be able to maintain our forests and
    part of that is to be able to have strong, economic markets for
    the wood. So it's essential that we have both, so I will look
    into this and get back to you.
        Senator Cassidy. It is interesting you just put a nice
    perspective, the degree to which the Federal Government passes
    regulations it makes it uneconomical for someone to have a
    forest.
        That forest would be put to its other economic uses and the
    Federal Government will actually be working against clean
    water, against having, if you will, a sump for CO2, if that is
    the priority and clean air. So the Federal regulation that
    restricts the access of another Federal agency to these
    products actually works against these stated goals of the
    agency. Is that a fair way to put it?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, it could. And once again I'm not
    familiar with, you know, this EPA regulation, so I'm going to
    have to get back to you on that.
        But, you know, my point was that we need to be very careful
    that we need to understand the benefit of our forests. And yes,
    we have our public land forests that are going to stay
    forested. But the majority of our forests in this country are
    private, and if we lose those private forested lands we lose
    the potential to be able to not only store carbon but provide
    that clean water, the wildlife habitat, the recreational
    settings.
        So it's essential that we consider the impacts of any of
    our regulations so that we want to be able to do is to be able
    to promote that. And then at the same time, to be able to
    answer the question that yes, it's being managed in a
    sustainable way because some of our markets in Europe, there's
    people that are questioning our forest management in this
    country because of the standards that they have in some of the
    European countries require that their wood products are coming
    from sustainable, managed forests. So it's essential we'll be
    able to do that but at the same time, be able to do it in a way
    that we can maintain these forests.
        It's--if I think about, if for no other reason, just the
    amount of carbon that's being stored. If we lose that sink, you
    know, we're going to have to find other ways to be able to deal
    with it. It's just another one of the benefits of forests that
    I'm not sure everyone recognizes.
        Senator Cassidy. We will then pose that as a question for
    the record, and we look forward to your reply after you have
    had a chance to review it.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you for being here with us today.
        Agriculture plays a pretty significant role in my home
    State of Utah. Our state's economy is quite dependent on
    agriculture, especially in many of the state's rural
    communities.
        Now because of the fact that two-thirds of Utah's land is
    federally controlled, thousands of Utah ranchers are dependent
    on Federal land managers and the policies they set for their
    own livelihood, their own ability to feed their families and
    keep their farms and ranches operating.
        Unfortunately for these ranchers and their families,
    Federal policies have become increasingly hostile toward
    livestock grazing. In fact, since the 1950s Federal land
    managers have cut livestock grazing rights by 74 percent. This
    is quite significant cutting those by 74 percent. This has
    created tremendous uncertainty for ranching families in Utah
    and undercut rural economy throughout my state.
        Can you tell me, Mr. Tidwell, why have grazing permits
    declined so dramatically since the 1950s?
        Mr. Tidwell. It would be a combination of things but part
    of it would be the impact that was occurring from the grazing.
    It's also the change with the multiple use and that the
    public's interest in these lands for a variety of uses whether
    it's for recreation, whether it's for wildlife, whether it's
    for scenery. And so when we look at how to manage these lands
    we want--we're going to continue to graze these lands, and we
    can do it in a way so that we can maintain the ecosystem,
    maintain the riparian areas. We have thousands of places where
    we can do this.
        And so has there been reductions over the last 60, 70
    years? Sure there has. But you also have to remember that the
    reason the forest, the national forests, exist in Utah is that
    the community's petitioned Congress to have them reserved from
    the public domain because of the lack of management that was
    occurring way back in the late 1800s.
        And so, over time, yes, there's been reductions. But it's
    been to be able to address the public's needs to provide, not
    only multiple use, but also to have sustainable grazing. And
    when we do that then the permittees are in a place where they
    have that certainty.
        The other problem that we deal with is that we go through
    droughty periods of time in Utah, like everyplace else. And
    when we go through those droughty periods of time there's just
    less forage and there's less capacity on the landscape. Now the
    ideal situation would be the permittees would be able to reduce
    their numbers during that time, and then when we do get the
    more favorable precip years they could actually expand their
    operations. That's the place we need to be, but it's very
    difficult for many of our ranchers to have that flexibility.
        Senator Lee. Yes, and I understand that there are a lot of
    considerations there, and I would not dispute that. I do not
    think any Utah ranchers would dispute the fact that it is
    necessary to restore rangelands to allow rangelands a chance to
    catch up so that our grazing permitting processes remain
    sustainable. But what I am hearing from a number of ranchers in
    Utah is that even after rangeland has been restored, after
    being allowed to rest for a while, it is still not opening up.
    That even once range conditions have improved substantially the
    grazing rights are not being restored. So why is that? Can you
    tell me why that is not happening? Is that the case, first of
    all? And to the extent it is the case, how do you justify that?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, each allotment has a management plan
    that basically lays out that the rotation of livestock, the,
    you know, the duration and the intensity of grazing. Permittees
    follow that. And so if there's available forage, it's
    available. A lot of it just depends on water, and the more
    water distribution that we can have then you can spread the
    livestock out. It also depends on the operations.
        So it's been my experience that we work with the permittees
    and we put a good plan together and it's their plan. They run
    the livestock. We set, these are the conditions that the public
    wants and needs from the landscape.
        So, you know, you have that opportunity to use that for
    that forage. And so, there's a variety of things that factor
    into it. But if the forage is there, we're making use of it.
        Senator Lee. Okay, thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    Chief Tidwell, for being here today.
        First of all, when we were having our budget hearing last
    year for the appropriations cycle, we had a conversation about
    the Forest Service's work around water, water policies and the
    ski area water rule. I understand in late 2015 that the Forest
    Service arrived at a ski area water clause that addressed the
    concerns of the ski industry, partners of the Forest Service,
    concerns that I shared with them which resulted in a resolution
    palatable to both the Forest Service and the ski area partners.
    I just want to thank you for your work on that.
        I would like to briefly touch on the importance of healthy
    forest management practices. Coloradans who are living in and
    around Pike National Forest near Colorado Springs are closely
    watching an incident of species infestation of the Douglas-fir
    Tussock Moth. I understand from a stakeholder meeting with the
    Forest Service on Friday in the area in Colorado Springs that
    the Forest Service is not looking into the possibility of
    utilizing a categorical exclusion provision within the Farm
    bill to treat the affected areas.
        The Douglas-fir trees in that forest are incredibly
    beautiful and certainly a local economic driver. I was hoping
    to get your commitment to continue to work with my office and
    local stakeholders to come to a resolution that will treat the
    Tussock Moth on the infestation on public lands which will lead
    to a healthier forest and obviously greater prevention for
    wildfires in the area.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, you have our commitment to
    continue to work with the city and the county there to be able
    to address that and to make use of that Farm bill authority.
    It's another example about the benefits of those authorities
    that were put together in a way that there's strong trust to be
    able to use those. And so this is a perfect example of that.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Chief.
        Madam Ranking Member, I would like to submit to the record
    the Memorandum of Understanding among Colorado stakeholders for
    coordinated treatment of the Douglas-fir Tussock Moth on
    private--
        Senator Cantwell [presiding]. Without objection.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner. Chief Tidwell, recently the Forest Service
    prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement on the
    Colorado roadless rule and reinstated the North Fork exemption
    to the rule. I would like to thank you for your work on this
    issue to date and look forward to the final record of decision.
    I think it is important that we recognize the value of coal
    mining in the North Fork Valley and to uphold the exception
    which is the result of years of negotiation and collaboration
    among the Forest Service, Colorado and stakeholders.
        Madam Ranking Member, I would like to submit two letters
    for the record on the Colorado roadless rule. One from Governor
    Hickenlooper and another letter I joined advocating for the
    exemption to be upheld in the Forest Service's analysis. If I
    could get those submitted to the record.
        Senator Cantwell. Without objection.
        Senator Gardner. Great. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner. Recreation on Forest Service lands, as you
    know, is obviously a tremendous part of Colorado's economy, our
    country's economy. Senator Shaheen and I are working on
    legislation that would focus more on the recreational economy,
    the outdoor economy, to get a better understanding of its
    economic impact.
        Recent studies in Colorado show that the ski industry in
    the state generates about $4.8 billion annually. The vast
    majority of the 25 ski areas in Colorado are located, at least
    partially, on national forest land. In addition, I have read
    that the ski areas generate over $20 million in fees that go
    directly into the U.S. Treasury.
        My concern is centered on reporting that the Forest Service
    is finding it increasingly challenging to keep up with the
    growing recreational industry, including these ski areas. In
    fact, the most heavily used, popular forest in the country is
    White River National Forest generating nearly $18 million of
    the fees paid to the Treasury each year. But we have seen the
    White River National Forest staff steadily decline, the budget
    eroding over the past several years. So they are struggling to
    uphold their end of the partnership. In fact, since 2009 if you
    look at it, I think they have seen a 40 percent reduction in
    their budget, the White River National Forest, as they take on
    new projects, as they take on improvements, expansion of summer
    recreation that has been such a great success over the past
    several years.
        How do we address this, at the Forest Service level, this
    erosion of local capacity to serve recreation that is critical
    to Colorado and so many other communities?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, we face that problem everywhere,
    not just in your state.
        You know, the ski areas are great partners. They're often
    willing to actually help, you know, pay for additional analysis
    when they're looking at expanding and especially as we're now
    moving into the forest season resorts to make full use of these
    facilities.
        We're doing what we can to be able to be a good partner and
    to be able to be responsive, but there's a problem you
    mentioned, you know, with the staffing. It's just, it's
    something that's occurred because of the cost of fire
    suppression. And it occurred gradually over quite a few years,
    over ten plus years, to the point where, you know, we just have
    33 percent fewer employees outside of fire than what we did
    just a few years ago. And so, it's just another example.
        Now that being said, what we're looking at is to find a way
    so that we can actually be more efficient with our processes so
    we can actually be even more responsive. It's one of the things
    that we want to be able to sit down, especially with the ski
    areas, where they can bring capacity, you know, to help with
    the problem. But we still have our role.
        But if we can find ways to be able to, you know, package
    different proposals together, to be able to get the work done
    up front so that there's, you know, strong support, people, the
    public, understands what's being proposed. We'll continue to be
    able to do a better job but it probably isn't going to satisfy
    their needs, and we're just going to have to find a way to stop
    the erosion of our staff.
        Senator Gardner. So specifically, with the fire funding
    fix, how would that help on the staffing issue? How
    specifically could we make sure that that money then, that it
    is prevented from being drained away over here to go into
    staffing issues?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well the first thing, it would stop the
    transfers. So we wouldn't have to deal with that anymore. We
    wouldn't lose all that time and expense and funding. And then
    the second thing is that we'd be able to at least maintain our
    current staffing or ideally build that over time because it
    would provide flexibility, budget space within the constraints
    so that appropriators could, you know, add to our budget
    instead of constantly reducing it to be able to pay for fire.
        So you know, that's the first thing is to stop the erosion
    and then to be able to create the space so that we can be
    proactive, not only on forest management but also to be able to
    deal with recreation so that we can carry out our
    responsibilities to be a good partner with all of our
    recreation users and especially the ski areas.
        Senator Gardner. Chief Tidwell, keeping in mind the drought
    maps and snow pack levels, as you are looking into the spring
    and the summer, what areas of the country are you concerned
    about from a forest fire perspective?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, you know, this year with our projections
    we're looking at having a less active year than we had last
    year. But we're also seeing areas where we're getting a very
    warm spring and we're seeing the snow, you know, come off the
    low ground, low areas. And so that's becoming a concern so that
    in our lower elevations we're now looking, it looks to me, that
    we may have an early fire season.
        Our higher country is going to be in much better shape than
    it was last year, at least out West, so we may not have those
    large fires in the high elevation. But come September it's
    going to dry out.
        One of the problems that we have is that when I'm asked to
    predict the fire season, you know, and our scientists can look
    at it. And one of the things they do, they predict the cost. So
    for FY16 our predictions right now is that we're 90 percent
    confident that the cost of this fire season is going to be
    between somewhere around $700 million and $1.72 billion. And
    that's today. And then we're talking about FY17 budget. So the
    idea that we can actually predict, I mean, we've got great
    scientists, but it is just so difficult. And so even for this
    year I'll be able to give you a good projection in May but
    probably not until May can I really answer your question.
        Senator Gardner. I understand. Thanks, Chief.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Chief Tidwell, let me go back again to the Tongass and the
    transition issue. I mentioned in my opening comments my concern
    that this transition only works if you have those that are able
    to stay in the business. We have had this conversation before,
    and I appreciate that the Forest Service has stuck with the Big
    Thorn sale. That is going to, hopefully, keep enough timber out
    there to keep things alive into next year.
        But I do remain concerned about the future. In 2015 you
    sold no old growth at all. So far this year in '16 you are
    planning to sell just 51 million board feet unless a revised
    Wrangell Island sale can be worked out. Looking out to 2017 and
    beyond, old growth sale planning is pretty much nonexistent
    with the focus entirely on preparing for young growth sales.
        So every year when we sit down in this public forum I raise
    the question to you, what do I say to people back home? What
    can I tell the folks at Viking about how the Forest Service
    intends to keep them and other mills alive? The industry needs
    old growth and a supply they can count on. It is needed to pay
    for investment. What do you say to the people who are working
    whether at Viking or at another mill? How do you encourage them
    to stay there? So what can you tell me that will be encouraging
    to the men and women in Southeast that continue to depend on a
    supply of timber from the Forest Service?
        Mr. Tidwell. You know Senator, I think our transition to
    young growth over time is the solution to be able to provide
    that certainty, to provide that bridge timber, to reach
    agreement that yes, there will be bridge timber made available.
        The Chairman. But what do we do in the short-term because--
        Mr. Tidwell. Well.
        The Chairman. You say over time, and I am saying okay, we
    can talk about it over time. But how do we keep them alive
    until then because the outline that I have given you is we have
    got timber that we can look to this year that keeps us alive
    through next. But how do you see their future after that?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, we're continuing to move forward with
    our annual timber program while we're doing this, and so far in
    FY16 the target for the Tongass is 62 million board feet. And
    it's my understanding they're committed to get that done,
    that--
        The Chairman. Are you aware, Chief, in order to keep this
    transition alive, we have got to rely, not only on what is
    coming off of the Forest Service lands, but also off of non-
    Federal lands? I understand Sealaska has told you as recently
    as just last week that they are going to have a difficult time
    continuing economic operations and that they are going to be
    seeking to supplement their timber supply with sales from the
    Tongass. They tell me that they are going to need to buy 20
    million board feet annually for perhaps 30 years from the
    Tongass.
        So how do you make this all work? How do you make this all
    work, not just for this year and not just for '17? If Sealaska
    is saying that they are going to need 30 years and you are
    suggesting that you are going to be able to have 62 million
    board feet, how does this all pencil out?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well it starts by the--there is--the folks in
    Alaska are working together, the state, Sealaska, folks on the
    Tongass and folks from the Mental Health Trust, to be able to
    look at how we can have, really, an all lands approach so that
    there is going to be x amount that's available for the industry
    and actually work together. This is something that you could
    say we should have been doing a better job in the past;
    however, we're looking at how we can do a better job as we move
    forward.
        And then based on that, to be able to have the coordination
    between the programs. But it's essential that we're able to
    produce. And I wouldn't be up here telling you that I, without
    any question, believe that this approach, that over time to
    transition to the young growth, is the solution to be able for
    us to continue to provide the integrated wood products industry
    in Southeast Alaska.
        And yes, we're going to have to continue to have the bridge
    timber. We're going to also have to be moving forward with some
    young growth to be able to start giving operators a chance to
    be able to explore markets, you know, with that young growth.
    And so that is our course.
        The Chairman. Well--
        Mr. Tidwell. That is our plan over time to be able to do
    this.
        The Chairman. I understand that it is a plan over time and
    again, I am trying to make something that works beyond the
    paper plan because on paper it might be possible. But again,
    you cannot push this young growth timber to grow any quicker.
    It cannot be a fantasy plan. It has to be based on accurate
    analysis and assessment and a reality on the ground.
        I continue to have the same concerns that I have had. I
    will continue to express them. It is not because I am sitting
    back here in Washington, DC, reading some talking points. It is
    because I am talking to the people that are on the ground, that
    are out in the communities, that are on Prince of Wales Island,
    who do not believe that they have the capacity to hang on much
    longer.
        They hear the good plans and they believe that it is
    nothing but pie in the sky. The effort, again, for these
    families that have worked so hard, for so many decades, and are
    not asking for the timber industry that was around 20 years
    ago, 30 years ago, they are asking to just be working with the
    facts.
        I am going to ask one more quick question and then turn to
    my colleague here, and this is regarding the proposed new,
    forest-wide standards and guidelines to address renewable
    energy development within the Tongass and the transition plan.
    You know that I had pushed for this last year, continue to do
    so, but what we are seeing is guidelines that appear to be
    pretty simplistic looking, pretty vague and therefore it causes
    me to question how effective they can be. Does the Forest
    Service plan to utilize an approach that would give greater
    clarity, more consistent, enforceable guidelines through an
    approach that has been put forward in the five year review--
    that is to provide for a renewable energy LUD? Because the
    issue that I am hearing is that what the Forest Service is
    proposing just does not provide enough clarity, there is
    ambiguity that is not going to be helpful to folks.
        Mr. Tidwell. So Senator, are you referring to the
    alternatives?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Tidwell. In the Forest Plan amendment?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, that's one of the benefits for the
    comments that we've received. I wanted to thank you for your
    letter, that very well written letter.
        The Chairman. It was a good letter. Thank you.
        Mr. Tidwell. And it's part of the comments. And as we go
    through those, those are the things we're going to be
    addressing. But those are the things, the feedback, that we
    need on the plan, if there's things we need to change.
        You know, that being said, we have, I know that we have at
    least five projects that are approved or under construction.
    There's another seven hydro projects that we're working on with
    FERC to try to get through, plus another, I think, another
    dozen that we're still, you know, looking to start the analysis
    on.
        So we are, we're moving forward. So we're not waiting for
    the Forest Plan amendment. We're going to continue to be able
    to work with folks to be able to move forward to be able to
    implement those hydro projects.
        The Chairman. I would ask you to look to making sure that
    these standards, these guidelines really do do what we are
    hoping which is to help facilitate the renewable energy
    development projects that we are talking about.
        Let me turn to Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chief Tidwell, I wanted to ask you about the Ascot Mine.
    Ascot Resources, a Canadian mining company, is proposing to
    conduct exploratory drilling on the Gifford Pinchot National
    Forest adjacent to Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
    The exploratory Goat Mountain Mining development could impact
    about 900 acres, and 165 of those acres of the proposed 900-
    acre development were purchased by the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        So you can see where I am going here. Why would the Forest
    Service allow for this proposal to move forward if you had
    already previously helped to conserve the land by purchasing it
    with the Land and Water Conservation Fund? I want to understand
    how those two things can co-exist together? I shouldn't say
    that that way. I don't believe they can co-exist, so I'm
    interested in this process that you're moving through.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, I share your concern. And I'm
    not certain on the timing of this, but I understand we acquired
    that property using LWCF a few years ago and then we have this
    mine proposal.
        So when we acquire properties they then become part of that
    national forest and the management is then covered under their
    forest plan. It raises the question for us to be thinking about
    this as we move forward to if there are, you know, areas
    depending on why this land was acquired. Was it just to block
    up ownership? Was it to provide public access? What was the key
    reason that the forest plan should assure that that, the
    purpose for acquiring the land, should still exist?
        But when we do have a, you know, a mining proposal that
    comes in on top of that, it raises the question about do we
    need to do a better job to be thinking out on these key parcels
    that are being acquired so that if it's what the public is okay
    with, then we're okay with it. But if it raises those
    questions, it's something that we need to be considering.
        This is somewhat unusual. It's happened, I think, at least
    once before that I'm aware of, when we've acquired lands and
    then had someone come in and stake a mining claim on it.
        Senator Cantwell. I am having a hard time understanding how
    we would use LWCF and not think it was for public use. I mean,
    LWCF is about protecting the public's access and interests, so
    it is hard for me to believe that a NEPA document would say
    that there is no recreational impact when literally LWCF is
    about preserving areas for recreational and public access for
    the future. That is why we are doing it because we do not want
    the development.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, you know, mining is also part of the use
    that occurs on national forests, too, you know, so it's one of
    the challenges that we have to deal with and balance.
        Senator Cantwell. But not in conjunction with LWCF.
        Mr. Tidwell. I agree and you know, it's one of the things
    that I want to look at how we can maybe avoid these problems
    from happening, in the future. But it's--once those lands are
    acquired then they are managed as part of the national forest.
    And if they are open for mining and there's a mining claim
    then, you know, that proponent has the ability to propose an
    operation.
        Senator Cantwell. Well anyway, I am sure you will hear from
    people who believe that it has recreational value and that it
    should be stated so in a NEPA document, but we will leave that
    for now.
        I want to ask you about road maintenance. The Mount Baker-
    Snoqualmie National Forest is proposing to close a number of
    its roads. I can understand closing roads that are endangering
    our watersheds, but there are a number of road closures there
    that are being proposed because of lack of maintenance funding.
    I want to understand how we can be proposing new roads when we
    have this backlog of maintenance?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, each year we build a very few
    number of roads. And often, those are roads that are to replace
    existing roads, to be able to move a road out along a stream,
    et cetera, to reduce environmental impacts. And then there's a
    few places where we do build a few roads and some are in the
    State of Alaska. But over many years the number of new roads
    that we're building is always a small number of maybe, you
    know, 10 or 15 miles per year.
        But your point about road maintenance is an issue, and we
    have a tremendous amount of backlog of deferred road
    maintenance that is contributing to not only the erosion but
    impacting the quality of our streams and our fisheries, et
    cetera, and it continues to be an outstanding problem for us.
        So as we look at which roads need to be closed we go
    through a public involvement process to identify those roads so
    that we can reduce some of the backlog of our deferred
    maintenance, reduce the impact to streams and at the same time
    still provide for a level of public access.
        Senator Cantwell. I think you have something like a 13
    percent decrease in the road maintenance funding but you have
    an existing $5 billion backlog. So to me, I do not know where
    you were talking about specifically building the new roads, but
    I am trying to understand the value because, as recreation
    supports so many jobs in our area, we certainly want to make
    sure that people are having access by the way of the
    recreational businesses for the Snoqualmie National Forest.
        What I am saying is, I am sure every day you have to make
    decisions about these issues, backlog versus new roads, but I
    am asking whether you consider the impact that that maintenance
    backlog has on recreational areas when it is such a big part of
    an economy in an area?
        Mr. Tidwell. We do, and it's one of the reasons why we sit
    down, not only with the communities but local officials and the
    public, to be able to find solutions to this problem.
        And so the majority of our road budget goes to maintenance,
    and we are proposing to spend $6 million on some new roads. I
    will be glad to provide for the record where those roads will
    be located and the purpose of those roads to be able to reduce
    environmental impacts and provide needed access for the public.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        If we can dialog about the Mount Baker situation,
    specifically with the community, that would be so helpful.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Chief, I just have a couple of quick, hopefully, very quick
    questions for you.
        The first relates to aviation resources and coordination
    with the states. Back in December we received testimony from
    National Association of State Foresters that during the 2015
    fire season, because of some new Federal rules, you had U.S.
    Forest Service dispatchers decline to call up state aircraft
    for fires on Federal land even when the state aircraft might
    have been closest to the fire start. We talked a lot about the
    issue of carding and different standards for aircraft used in
    fire suppression.
        Can you give me a quick update on the aircraft carding
    issues and progress on the coordination then between Forest
    Service, Department of the Interior and the states, so that we
    know that we have got one carding system out there that
    recognizes aviation standards as being equal and accepted by
    all?
        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, we are working with the states to
    be able to come up with that one standard.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Tidwell. We operate about, at least 300 to maybe 400
    helicopters and, you know, dozens of contracted aircraft that
    all do meet this one standard that the Forest Service has. That
    being said, not all the states do and so we want to ideally get
    to a point where there's just one standard so that it makes it
    easier for us to be able to use resources. And it also, you
    know, ensures that level of safety that our pilots are looking
    for and the public is looking for.
        The Chairman. Do you think that you can do that relatively
    quickly or how long of a process is this? Because again, as we
    heard in the Committee here, there is nothing that frustrates
    people more than knowing you have got an immediate issue right
    there, you know exactly what has to happen, and yet you are
    stuck because somebody does not have the proper authorization.
        Mr. Tidwell. It's going to take some time. I don't think
    this is--
        The Chairman. Like years?
        Mr. Tidwell. It may. A lot of it will depend on our
    partners in the states on their willingness to be able to come
    together on one standard.
        The Chairman. Well if there is anything we can do to help
    facilitate those conversations so that we can make that happen
    more rapidly, I think that there would clearly be interest in
    doing that.
        Let me go to an issue in Southeastern Alaska. This relates
    to Shee Atika and Cube Cove land deal. This is a situation
    where there were inholdings within Admiral T. Island for Shee
    Atika Native Corporation.
        What has been going on is there has been a long protracted
    situation, an effort for an appraisal of the lands. That was
    accomplished last October, and it was accepted by Forest
    Service and Shee Atika. That appraisal now expires in October
    unless there is a purchase option agreement that is signed
    locking in the appraisal price. What we have recently learned
    is that there is new staff at Forest Service that think an
    environmental site assessment that was conducted prior to the
    appraisal is no longer valid and needs to be redone. That would
    completely pull the rug out from under all the progress that
    has been made and the effort for Shee Atika, again, to get this
    concluded.
        I would ask you to look into this issue and determine
    whether the reassessment needs to be redone or whether it can
    simply be updated. We would really like some assistance in just
    making sure that there is a process that is smooth on this.
        If you can also look into the issue of the split ownership
    of the Cube Cove lands with regards to Sealaska. Again, a local
    issue, but it is one that has been outstanding, and it seems to
    me there is no reason that we cannot get this resolved.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, we are going to move forward. We
    do need to update that environmental study assessment which is
    a relatively quick and easy thing to do. We'll be able to get
    that done this spring, be able to move forward and get a
    purchase option. And it's my expectation that we'll be asking,
    I'll be asking, for your help for us to be able to quickly
    complete that purchase that we've been working on this for many
    years.
        The Chairman. Yes, we have.
        Mr. Tidwell. So we want to make sure we get it locked in
    this year, so we can quickly move forward to be able to
    complete that purchase.
        The Chairman. And recognizing that appraisal then expires
    in October we have got a pretty tight timeline here, so--
        Mr. Tidwell. That's why we have to get the purchase option
    in place, get that study completed and move forward to start
    acquiring the lands with the money that we currently have plus
    what we're requesting in FY17.
        The Chairman. Okay. Well let us work closely with you on
    that.
        Two very quick ones here.
        What are the Forest Service plans for offering new
    opportunities for tourism firms and wildlife bids to gain new
    or additional days for services in Region 10 both in Tongass
    and Chugach? We have received so many complaints in my office
    about the lack of new opportunities, no solicitation open
    periods. You have new operations that would love to come in and
    gain some use days. Can you tell me whether or not there are
    going to be any new solicitations for the Chugach in either '16
    or '17?
        Mr. Tidwell. I'll have to get back to you on it, on the
    Chugach.
        The Chairman. Would you?
        [The information had not been received as of the date of
    printing.]
        Mr. Tidwell. I know that we're going to move forward with
    some on the Tongass, but your point is well taken that this is
    the sort of thing we need to be able to find ways to make it
    easier and to be able to expand those operations so that more
    people can get out there. And then also it creates more jobs.
        The Chairman. Well, if you can look into that.
        It goes back to a point that I made earlier with regards to
    our request to Forest Service last year on the recreation
    dollars that come from Forest Service. Alaska has taken
    disproportionate reductions in funding over the years. You were
    directed to correct and address that. We have not seen where
    that has been remedied, and I would like an update on that as
    well.
        [The information had not been received as of the date of
    printing.]
        My final question for you this morning regards Secure Rural
    Schools (SRS).
        We were told that the payments through the extension that
    we did last year, that the payment was supposed to go out to
    the states last month for distribution. I am hearing now that
    the payments may be delayed. Can you give me any update to that
    as to when communities might expect to see their SRS payments?
        Mr. Tidwell. The payments should go out no later than next
    week.
        The Chairman. Okay, okay, and it will be as advertised, if
    you will?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, we did have some discussion on whether
    these payments would be subject to sequestration, and the
    determination was that they are not.
        The Chairman. That will be welcome news.
        Mr. Tidwell. So it took a little while to be able to get
    there, but that did delay things a few weeks. But we're now
    ready to move forward.
        The Chairman. Okay, good.
        Well know that is another area I know Senator Wyden and I
    and Senator Cantwell have looked to how we are going to deal
    with SRS and again making sure that these communities that are
    so reliant on these dollars are able to provide for some
    planning.
        Senator Cantwell. You know, Chief Tidwell, I just want to
    say thank you because that's so important to these communities,
    so I am sure that they will be very anxious to hear that news
    this morning and getting this revenue out to them, as I
    mentioned Skamania County, but there are many other counties in
    our state that are so dependent upon that.
        I am also eagerly awaiting your outcome on the Small
    Business Set Aside Rulemaking. I am not asking you to make
    comment here, but we are looking forward to seeing your
    comments on that.
        I know my colleagues also asked about the YMCA permit
    process and you are in the stages of finalizing that. That too,
    will be very, very important to us. I appreciate how much you
    have worked with them in the interim time since we first
    brought this up in the Committee. We will look forward to the
    details of how that process works.
        So, thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for bringing up
    that last point on the Set Aside. You and I had worked on that
    letter some time ago, I guess last October, but we are still
    waiting on that.
        It is not just a response to that letter. It was back in
    '13 that we had assurances that we would see something to
    correct the problem in '14. Congress urged the Forest Service
    to address this in Approps bill and then in '15 we directed
    Forest Service to act within our Interior Approps bill with the
    stewardship contracting.
        I would certainly hope that we would have some form of
    communication back from you in terms of where this is and why
    it has not been addressed. If you could get that to us, we
    would appreciate it.
        Mr. Tidwell. We'll provide the Committee on the update, the
    progress we're working through with the Small Business
    Administration on that.
        The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
        And Chief, thank you for being here this morning. Thank you
    for your responses to the questions from all of us and thank
    you for your work. We appreciate it.
        [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]