[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, [email protected].
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]