[Senate Hearing 114-185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Blunt, Daines, Udall, Leahy,
and Tester.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
United States Forest Service
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY TONY DIXON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Good morning. We will call the hearing
to order this morning. We are here today to review the fiscal
year 2016 budget request for the Forest Service.
Chief, it is good to have you back before the subcommittee.
Thank you.
And I would also like to welcome Mr. Tony Dixon, who serves
as the Director of the Office of Strategic Planning, Budget,
and Accountability at the Forest Service. He's accompanying the
Chief today. Welcome to you as well.
Again, we are going to follow early bird rules here. We
will do 6-minute rounds afterward. Hopefully, we will be able
to get through all of our questions this morning. I know that
other members have other appropriations hearings that we are
trying to juggle and run in and out between. So hopefully, we
will operate smoothly here and efficiently.
Let's go to the budget request itself. The Forest Service
has asked for $4.93 billion for fiscal year 2016. That is 2.7
percent or $130 million less than the current enacted level.
The Forest Service has also requested an additional $854
million in mandatory spending for the proposed fire cap
adjustment.
I am pleased that the request maintains the increases the
subcommittee included last year for hazardous fuels management.
I also appreciate the funding proposed for the Forest Inventory
Analysis program. This provides important information to our
States, to industry, and other land managers on the health of
all of our Nation's forests. It will allow this information to
be collected in interior Alaska for the very first time, which
the State has advocated for, for many years.
I also appreciate that unlike previous years where the
subsistence program line item was proposed for elimination,
that funding is included at last year's level. This is critical
for managing the subsistence resource in Alaska, so I thank you
for that.
There are a few things that I do find concerning, so I have
to mention those as well. The budget requests $127.7 million
for Federal land acquisition through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, $65 million of which is proposed to be
mandatory spending. That is a staggering $80 million above
fiscal year 2015. While the President's budget doesn't respect
the budget caps, this subcommittee is still bound by the Budget
Control Act.
And while I do believe we should reauthorize and modernize
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, this is a proposal,
looking at your budget, Chief, that I can't support.
The administration is yet again proposing the Integrated
Resource Restoration program, which has been rejected multiple
times by this subcommittee, because the Forest Service has not
yet demonstrated the effectiveness of the current IRR pileup
projects. And I know that I bring this up with you at every
budget hearing, so it is back before us again.
Despite the problems that I see with the President's
request, there are also areas where I do believe we can be
working together. For example, I am committed to working with
my colleagues to find a way to stop fire borrowing. Fire
borrowing undermines the appropriations process and restricts
our ability to complete important work on the ground because of
the loss of field seasons. Future activities are further
impeded when we are forced to repay fire suppression costs in
the following fiscal year.
I am hopeful that during the course of this Congress, we
will reach agreement on how to end this destructive cycle.
We also need to get back to the idea that the Forest
Service should manage our forests for multiple use and
sustained yield. While I appreciate the idea of the new Forest
Service mantra, which is ``Caring for the Land, Serving the
People,'' it doesn't always feel like you are living up to it
in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass area, and in other parts
around the country.
What would best serve the people of my State is a
sustainable timber industry, and no one is suggesting that we
should roll back the clock and engage in what some might
consider irresponsible forestry management. Alaska has proven
that robust development, tourism, and habitat can successfully
coexist, and I know that there are many, many examples across
the country.
The elementary school where I went as a kid was once
robustly funded by a thriving Federal timber program, but today
it relies on Secure Rural Schools subsidies, which are harder
and harder to find space for in our annual budget. This is a
problem of the Forest Service's own creation. So I look forward
to hearing how the Forest Service proposes to correct it.
It is not a false choice to pursue both healthy local
economies and healthy forests. We can have both. And if we work
toward that as our goal, we will solve many of the problems
that we currently face.
We wouldn't require hundreds of millions of dollars for
subsidies to our logging communities. We could make great
strides in reducing fuel loads in our Federal forests. And we
could make advancements in technology that will result in
commercial uses for currently nonmerchantable timber. Most
importantly, we could have thriving and healthy communities and
forests.
During questions, I want to discuss several challenges that
we are facing and hear your ideas for solutions to them. I
would like to hear about the Forest Service plans for air
tanker modernization, and aircraft availability this fire
season, and then going into the future. I would also like to
hear how the Forest Service proposes to increase revenues to
counties while phasing out the Secure Rural Schools program.
And I would also like to hear about any developments the Forest
Service has made toward maintaining a sustainable timber
industry in Alaska.
Again, Chief, thank you for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony.
And with that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator
Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
FOREST SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski.
And good morning and welcome, Chief Tidwell, and Budget
Director Tony Dixon. Thank you for joining us today as we
discuss the fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Forest
Service.
This is very important to New Mexico. We are home to seven
national forests and one national grassland. We are also a
hotspot for almost every management issue that the Forest
Service faces: the economic activities of timber, mining,
grazing, and recreation; the protection of wilderness,
watersheds, and endangered species; the impact of disease,
drought, and fire.
In New Mexico, we are dealing with historic drought and
devastating wildfires. The Las Conchas fire in 2011 destroyed
over 156,000 acres, half of it in the Santa Fe National Forest.
It was New Mexico's largest fire in history, but not for long.
In 2012, the Whitewater-Baldy fires burned up almost twice
as much acreage, 298,000 acres in the Gila National Forest.
Then in 2013, the Silver fire, 138,000 acres burned also in
the Gila, the third largest fire on record in our State.
I commend the Forest Service for their efforts to fight
these fires and to repair the damage. The Burned Area Emergency
Repair program was a great help to stabilize the burned-over
landscape, clean up cultural and heritage sites, and repair
trails. That war continues. Even with these funds, it will take
many years.
And the changing climate is making this type of fire more
likely. More and more trees are dying across the southwest due
to historic drought and increased temperatures. Winter warming
has worsened bark beetle outbreaks by allowing more beetles,
which normally die in cold weather, to survive and reproduce.
Wildfire and bark beetles killed 20 percent of trees in Arizona
and New Mexico forests from 1984 to 2008.
The danger is clear and growing. It is crucial to fund
programs that reestablish healthy, resilient forests that can
withstand fire and disease.
I totally agree with what the Chairman said in terms of
talking about sustainable forestry. I think that is something
that the two of us can agree on, and I would like to work with
you on that.
We can't keep borrowing, though, on this Forest Service
situation, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We have to move
beyond the cycle we are stuck in. We can't keep fighting fires
with money borrowed from programs that help prevent them. The
Forest Service needs to be able to pay for firefighting without
gouging its other mission areas.
Firefighting now takes 47 percent of its budget, compared
to just 13 percent in the early 1990s, and that is clearly,
Chief, as you know, not sustainable.
The disaster cap proposal included in the budget is an
opportunity to both stop the borrowing and, at the same time,
dedicate funding to restore our forests. I look forward to
talking about how we can work together to get this proposal
signed into law.
I am also looking forward to discussing with you a number
of the regular proposals in the budget, including a $20 million
increase for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
program. New Mexico has two ongoing collaborative projects. I
would like to talk about how this increase will be used and
whether it could help projects in my State.
There are other management issues to consider as well. The
budget again proposes the consolidation of major accounts
within the National Forest System into the Integrated Resource
Restoration line item. This began as a pilot program, as you
know, Chief, in fiscal year 2012, in the three Forest Service
regions. That includes all of New Mexico's national forests,
which are also undergoing management plan revisions under the
new 2012 planning rule. So I hope to hear more about that
process.
Finally, the budget includes an additional $8 million for
Forest Legacy projects and $15.5 million for Land Acquisition.
New Mexico projects are not included on either list this year,
but full support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) is as important as ever. LWCF is vital to protecting our
public lands, and I look forward to hearing from you, Chief
Tidwell, and to discuss these matters with you this morning.
And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
With that, let's go to the Chief this morning. Welcome to
the subcommittee.
And, Mr. Dixon, we appreciate you being here as well.
I would like to get right in to the Chief's comments, so we
can move to questions and answers. If members have an opening
statement that they would like to submit for the record, we are
happy to include that. But let's, at this time, invite the
Chief to present on behalf of the Forest Service.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall,
Senator Tester, Senator Daines, I appreciate the opportunity to
be here today to talk about the fiscal year 2016 budget request
for the U.S. Forest Service. Once again, I really appreciate
the work we have been able to accomplish over the last year
working together to address the needs of our communities, but
also primarily to help restore our Nation's forests.
I just want to highlight a few of the key points of our
budget request.
The first one is that this budget request will continue to
allow us to increase the pace and scale of restoring our
Nation's forests and grasslands by doing restoration on 2.9
million acres, restoring over 3,200 miles of streams, restoring
2,000 miles of road, improving the ecological condition on 20
key watersheds, and producing 3.2 billion board feet. This is
one of the key outputs that come off our restoration work, and
it basically reflects about a 33 percent increase from when I
first addressed this subcommittee 5 years ago.
It also is asking for additional money, an additional $20
million to expand the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration program (CFLRP). This program has proven the
benefits of making multiyear commitments of funding to large
landscapes, and I am anxious we will be sending a 5-year report
on the CFLRP accomplishments. We will be sending the report to
the Hill next week.
I also want to be able to use the additional money that we
are asking for in our Integrated Research Restoration budget
line item. We are asking for another $27 million. Part of that
I would like to use to do a pilot approach similar to CFLRP,
but in the landscapes in the country that are not dominated by
fire-dependent ecosystems.
If you look at the CFLRP map, you see where those 23
projects are spread across the country, there is a couple big
parts of our country that do not have any projects there
because they do not have these fire-dependent ecosystems. But I
would like to be able to take a pilot approach to be able to
use a similar concept to be able to make a multiyear commitment
of funds to be able to address the forest health issues in
those parts of the country and at the same time be able to
sustain the integrated wood products industry.
This budget request does maintain the significant increase
in hazardous fuels funding that you granted us last year, so
that we can continue to treat another 1.7 million acres of
hazardous fuels in wildland-urban interface.
It will also allow us to maintain the level of preparedness
resources so that we will continue to suppress 98 percent of
all wildland fires where we take initial attack, while dealing
with now over 58 million acres of wildland-urban interface.
The budget request does ask for a fire cap adjustment to
deal with the cost of fire suppression. This is an approach
that I really appreciate the support of the members, and their
leadership, to be able to find a legislative solution. But it
is past time for us to find a fix and to stop the transfer, to
stop having to shut down operations in August, be able to move
funds from all the programs across the country, to be able to
pay the cost of fire suppression, and then just have Congress
appropriate the money to pay it back in the next year or the
year after.
So this is, I think, our best opportunity, once and for
all, to finally solve this problem.
With the budget fire cap adjustment, our request still
includes 70 percent of the 10-year average. The 10-year average
went up between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. The 10-
year average went up $115 million this year. I think it is just
another example of why we need to find a different approach to
address fire suppression cost.
With the fire cap adjustment, we still would be funding the
suppression on probably 99 percent of our fires through our
appropriated budget. It is just about 1 percent of our fires
that result in about 30 percent of the costs. We would like
those fires to be considered a natural disaster.
Those are the fires that impact our communities, where we
spend the millions of dollars on it. And just like last year,
the top 10 fires we had last year, were the most expensive
fires, $329 million. So I think last year was just another
example that really supports this legislative solution of being
able to recognize that this very small number of fires, this 1
percent of the fires, should be treated as a natural disaster.
This budget request does ask for some increases in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and our Forest Legacy
Program. When I look at the projects that we are proposing to
fund with this additional money, it has been my experience that
the acquisitions are on relatively small tracks. It has been my
personal experience that, in every case, it reduces the
administrative costs; it removes boundaries we maintain; it
allows us to be able to do restoration treatments across larger
landscapes and not have to be worried about dealing with an
isolated 640 acres. It also provides certainty for public
access, even on some of these parcels that today the public is
allowed to cross to be able to access the national forests.
Nobody knows for sure if that'll be there in the future, but by
acquiring these parcels, it does guarantee public access.
With our Forest Legacy Program, it also allows us to work
with willing landowners to put a conservation easement on their
land to allow them to keep their land and to keep it working
versus having to sell it to some form of development.
This budget request does include the increased request for
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), and I appreciate, Madam
Chair, you mentioning that. This is an essential program, not
just for the Forest Service, but every State forestry agency,
and industry. The timber industry relies on this information.
It is essential that we be able to maintain, not only the
quality of the information, but be able to expand it to include
interior Alaska, but at the same time be able to reduce the
frequency of how often we read the plots. As we see the changes
that are occurring in our landscapes, they are driven by
multiple infestations of insect and disease, fire, and climate
change. There is a necessity for us to be able to increase the
frequency of reading these plots so we have the information
that we need to make sure that we can sustain the Nation's
forests.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Then, the last key part of the budget is our proposal to
reauthorize Secure Rural Schools. I believe it is just
essential that we find a way to reauthorize this program that
has proven to be very successful, and to provide that safety
net to our communities. At the same time, it has also provided
funding for us to do additional restoration work that is
strongly supported by our counties and our boroughs across the
country.
So thank you for letting me take a few minutes to just
highlight a few points of this budget request, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the President's budget request for the Forest
Service for fiscal year 2016. I appreciate the support this
subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past. I look
forward to continuing to work with members of the subcommittee to
ensure that stewardship of our Nation's forests and grasslands serve
the desires, expectations, and interests of the American people. I am
confident that this budget, paired with the passage of a wildland fire
suppression budget cap adjustment, will allow the Forest Service to
meet the increasingly complex challenges of natural resource management
while fostering efficiency and demonstrating cost-effective spending.
budget request and focus areas
The President's proposed overall budget for discretionary funding
for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2016 is $4.9 billion. That is
$130 million less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, but it
reflects strategic investments to increase forest restoration and
reduce wildfire threats to communities. This budget focuses on five key
areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities,
managing wildland fires, promoting safety, and building diversity and
inclusiveness. It proposes a fiscally responsible funding strategy for
wildland fire management, contributes to long-term economic growth, and
continues our efforts to achieve the greatest benefits for the taxpayer
with the most cost-effective approach. This budget will enable us to
more effectively reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more holistically,
and increase the resiliency of the Nation's forests and grasslands as
well as the communities that border them.
restoring resilient landscapes
The Forest Service responds to the many stressors affecting our
landscapes and watersheds by working to restore healthy, resilient
forests and grasslands. By restoration, we mean re-establishing the
functions and processes characteristic of healthier, more threat-
resistant, and more resilient ecosystems, even if they are not exactly
the same ecosystems that existed before. These efforts reduce carbon
emissions and make forests and grasslands more resilient in the face of
climate change as well as climate-related disturbances, such as
wildfires and insect outbreaks. Our goal is to protect and regain the
ability of America's forests and grasslands to deliver all the social,
economic, and ecological values and benefits that Americans want and
need, both now and for generations to come.
In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized a pilot program where
multiple budget line items were combined into a single line item,
Integrated Resource Restoration, in three Forest Service regions.
Combining funds from multiple budget line items allows us to better
integrate and align watershed protection and restoration into all
aspects of our management. Results from the pilot program consistently
show that budget planning is simpler and managers have more flexibility
to complete restoration work. When programs are better integrated, it
is easier to establish goals and set priorities. Given the demonstrated
success of this approach in the three pilot regions, we propose to
fully implement Integrated Resource Restoration across the entire
Forest Service in fiscal year 2016, with a budget of $822 million. This
level of funding and the associated outputs below are dependent on the
passage of a fire suppression cap adjustment and will help us implement
restoration projects to address insect and disease outbreaks in areas
designated under the 2014 Farm Bill and to work with the States under
our new Good Neighbor Authority. If funded at the requested budget
level, we will use the Integrated Resource Restoration line item to
treat 2.9 million acres to improve watershed function and resilience,
sell 3.2 billion board feet of timber, maintain over 52 percent of the
watersheds across the National Forest System at a properly functioning
condition, and improve the condition of up to an additional 20
watersheds.
Created in 2009, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program encourages collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration
of priority landscapes. The program currently supports 23 large-scale
projects for 10-year funding to implement priority restoration projects
on National Forest System lands while engaging local communities and
leveraging partner resources through collaboration, implementation, and
monitoring. The projects support an array of restoration activities,
including reducing hazardous fuels, restoring watershed function and
resilience, increasing pollinator habitat, and improving forest
vegetation and wildlife habitat. These collaborative projects help
local economies by creating and maintaining jobs in rural communities,
generating commercial timber and biomass for energy production, and
restoring forest health while reducing the need for fire suppression in
overgrown forests. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget for the
Forest Service includes a proposal to eventually increase funding
authority for the program from $40 million to $80 million, with funding
in fiscal year 2016 requested at $60 million. The funding increase will
allow us to pursue up to 10 additional projects. Accordingly, the
budget proposes extending authority for the program through 2024 to
allow for full completion of new projects.
The fiscal year 2016 President's budget for the Forest Service sets
the stage for restorative actions, providing the necessary
infrastructure as well as the needed scientific and organizational
foundations for ecological restoration. Our researchers will provide
managers with the knowledge they need to make sound risk-based
decisions to take restorative actions, partly through the Regional Hubs
for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change. The fiscal year
2016 President's budget funds Forest Service Research and Development
at $292 million. That includes $83 million for Forest Inventory and
Analysis, an increase of $13 million from the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level. This additional funding will allow us to inventory the vast,
remote forests of interior Alaska for the first time using state-of-
the-art remote sensing technology combined with field teams to verify
our initial results.
It will also allow us to address 5 of the 11 provisions in the
Forest Inventory and Analysis strategic plan, developed pursuant to
direction in the 2014 Farm Bill. These provisions include improved
forest carbon and biomass estimation, enhanced forest ownership study,
improvements in land use and land cover research, annualized forest
products monitoring, and inventorying the full base target of 15
percent of plots in the East and 10 percent of plots in the West
annually.
building thriving communities
The Forest Service works to build thriving communities across the
Nation by providing communities with the many economic benefits that
result from sustainable multiple-use management of the national forests
and grasslands, helping urban communities reconnect with the outdoors,
and expanding the benefits that both rural and urban residents get from
outdoor recreation. Rural communities rely on the landscapes around
them for hunting, fishing, and various amenities.
Forest-dependent rural counties and communities have long benefited
from Forest Service payments to support rural schools, including
payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000. We propose reauthorizing the act through
2019. This will help timber-dependent rural communities transition to a
more diverse, resilient economic model that is less reliant on the
receipt of Federal financial support.
Jobs and economic benefits stem from our administration of the
National Forest System, including its multiple uses, as well as from
investments in the activities, access, and infrastructure needed to
deliver essential public services such as clean water, electrical
power, and outdoor recreational experiences. The fiscal year 2016
President's budget for the Forest Service will focus on building
thriving communities by providing jobs and benefits in two key areas:
outdoor recreation and forest products. We will also continue to issue
and renew grazing permits, execute timber sales, and permit other
commercial uses of forests and grasslands nationwide.
Jobs and Benefits from Outdoor Recreation
Spending by visitors engaging in recreation activities, including
skiing, hiking, hunting, and fishing, supports more jobs and economic
output than any other activities on the National Forest System. In
2012, outdoor recreation on the National Forest System supported around
190,000 jobs and contributed about $13 billion to the Nation's gross
domestic product.
We offer a range of recreational opportunities across the National
Forest System to connect people with nature in an unmatched variety of
settings and through a plethora of activities. We will expand programs
that demonstrate success and explore new partnerships that will
leverage resources to help get more kids outdoors, up close and
personal with nature. We will also reconnect visitors with America's
outdoor heritage and help them learn about the Great Outdoors,
improving their quality of life as they become citizen-stewards of
their public lands. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget would fund
the Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness program at $263.9 million.
Reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act through
fiscal year 2017 would help us meet public demand for sustainably
managed recreational facilities.
We manage our infrastructure to ensure safety, protect water
quality, and conserve wildlife habitat, especially threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species. The fiscal year 2016 President's
budget includes a $33 million investment in Deferred Maintenance and
Infrastructure Improvement to address the backlog of maintenance and
repair of Forest Service facilities.
Jobs and Benefits from Timber, Grazing, and Other Uses
Through work on National Forest System lands, the timber and forest
products industries, livestock producers, and minerals/energy
production collectively support about 118,000 jobs. Each year, these
industries contribute about $11.5 billion to America's gross domestic
product. In rural areas in particular, these uses deliver sustained
social and economic benefits to communities.
Our restoration work will create local jobs and help sustain
communities, as will the sale of restoration byproducts. We will use
traditional timber sales as well as our stewardship contracting
authority to restore watersheds and healthy, resilient forested
landscapes on National Forest System lands while engaging communities
in management of their public lands. Our fiscal year 2016 target for
timber volume sold is 3.2 billion board feet, up from 2.9 billion board
feet in fiscal year 2015. We will promote woody biomass utilization and
biomass markets and facilities, providing jobs and other community
benefits. Local communities will also benefit from fuelwood, special
forest products, and safe drinking water supplies from the national
forests.
However, the national forests account for only 20 percent of the
Nation's forested lands. The remainder is under State, private, tribal,
municipal, or other Federal ownership. Private forests alone supply
almost 30 percent of the Nation's surface drinking water, provide
habitat for 60 percent of at-risk species, and furnish more than 90
percent of domestically produced timber. Accordingly, our
responsibilities to support sustainable forest management go far beyond
the National Forest System lands.
We will continue to support sustainable forest management on a
landscape scale through a variety of educational and technical
assistance programs for private forest landowners. Rural communities
benefit from nearby forests, which provide local jobs, bolster rural
economies and community infrastructure, and furnish opportunities for
rural Americans to connect with the Great Outdoors. The fiscal year
2016 President's budget proposes maintaining our investment in forest
landowner assistance through $23 million in funding for the Forest
Stewardship program.
Land Acquisition and Improved Public Access
We join the U.S. Department of the Interior in requesting $400
million in discretionary funding and $500 million in mandatory funding
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2016, with all
$900 million coming from mandatory funding in fiscal year 2017. Full
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund supports the
President's agenda of improving public access. Accordingly, we will
work with partners to protect critical forested landscapes from
conversion to developed uses through $61 million in discretionary
funding for the Forest Legacy Program, $8 million more than the fiscal
year 2015 enacted level.
Our Land Acquisition Program will provide access for people,
protect critical ecosystems, and prevent habitat fragmentation. Land
acquisitions provide proven value for the taxpayer, making it easier
and less expensive for people to access their public lands--and easier
and less expensive for the Forest Service to manage and restore the
lands entrusted to our care. An analysis by The Trust for Public Land
showed that every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition returns $4 to
the taxpayer. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget proposes $63
million in discretionary funding for our Federal Land Acquisition
program, an increase of $15.5 million from the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level. Five million dollars of the discretionary funds will be used to
acquire tracts to improve sportsman and recreational access to National
Forest System lands.
In and around our cities, we will work with partners to sustain and
restore urban forests. This not only helps ensure widespread access to
green space, but provides other vital benefits such as energy savings,
flood and pollution control, and climate change mitigation. The vast
majority of Americans live in urban areas and urban and community
forests cover about 130 million acres, an area larger than California.
Tree-lined streets and open spaces improve quality of life for millions
of Americans and we will work with urban communities to protect and
expand these amenities. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget funds
Urban and Community Forestry at $23.7 million.
managing wildland fires
Increasingly severe fire seasons are one of the greatest challenges
facing the Nation's forests. The Forest Service will continue to
collaborate with its Federal, State, local, and tribal governments,
partners, and stakeholders on the implementation of the National
Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy to safely and effectively
extinguish fire when needed, use fire where allowable, manage our
natural resources and, as a Nation, live with wildland fire.
The Forest Service has one of the most effective fire organizations
in the world and continues to keep almost 98 percent of the wildfires
we fight very small. However, the few fires that do escape initial
response tend to grow much larger far more quickly than ever before. In
addition, the cost of fire suppression has soared in the past 20 years.
We are again proposing a revised funding strategy for wildfire
suppression. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget proposes
discretionary funding for suppression at a level represented by 70
percent of the 10-year average of fire suppression costs. This level of
funding provides for suppression of 99 percent of the fires we
fight.\1\ In addition, up to $855 million would be made available under
a disaster funding cap adjustment to meet funding needs for fire
suppression above the base appropriation. This strategy would provide
increased certainty in addressing growing needs for fire suppression
funding while better protecting non-suppression programs from funding
transfers that diminish their effectiveness. Moreover, it would allow
us to stabilize our investments in restoring forested landscapes,
helping forests adapt to the growing effects of climate change, and
preparing communities in the wildland/urban interface for future
wildfires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A joint analysis between the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior found that 1 percent of fires are
responsible for 30 percent of suppression costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
Fire plays a beneficial role in maintaining the ecological
stability of many landscapes, and the Forest Service is working with
partners to restore healthy, resilient, fire-adapted ecosystems. Our
goal, especially near homes and communities, is to prepare forests and
grasslands to resist stresses such as drought and recover from
disturbances, including wildfires. Our large-scale restoration projects
are designed in part to restore fire-adapted forest types across large
landscapes, including the reintroduction of periodic wildland fire
where safe and effective.
Developing new markets for the low-value woody materials we remove
during restoration and hazardous fuels treatments will help offset the
costs of these activities while providing new revenue streams for
private landowners. Therefore, this remains a top priority for the
Forest Service. We will continue to provide grants and other forms of
assistance for wood-to-energy initiatives, and to help projects compete
for other sources of funding. We will also provide technical assistance
to help facilities that convert wood to energy become or remain
financially viable.
Building Fire-Adapted Human Communities
More than 46 million homes in the United States, or about 40
percent of our Nation's housing units, are located in fire-prone parts
of the wildland/urban interface. We will continue providing scientific
and analytical support to help these communities become fire-adapted.
This work includes completing hazardous fuels treatments, preparing
community wildfire protection plans, becoming designated as Firewise
Communities through the national Firewise program, and obtaining
equipment to respond to and mitigate wildfire. Our goal is to encourage
communities to adapt to wildland fire by establishing an effective
emergency response plan and managing risk in a way that protects lives,
property, and wildland resources. The fiscal year 2016 President's
budget proposes funding the corresponding Research and Development
program at nearly $20 million and the Joint Fire Science Program at
nearly $7 million, both about equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted
levels.
We will control fuels in the wildland/urban interface by removing
buildups of dead vegetation and thinning overly dense forests. We will
focus on treating high-priority areas, including municipal watersheds
to protect water supplies. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget
proposes $359 million for our Hazardous Fuels program, approximately
the same as the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
Responding Appropriately to Wildfire
Where suppression is needed to protect homes and property, we will
continue to deploy resources at appropriate places and times. Fire
managers are using improved decision support tools to make risk-based
assessments about when and where to suppress a fire--and when and where
to use fire to achieve management goals for long-term ecosystem health
and resilience. Our primary goal is always to protect life and
property. Our collaborative interagency emergency response capacity,
executed in cooperation with law enforcement, helps us accomplish this
by focusing on preparedness for wildfire and other natural disasters
and assuring an appropriate risk-based response.
We will continue to maintain an appropriate level of preparedness.
Our Preparedness program has proven its worth. Fire Program Analysis, a
strategic management tool, shows that every $1.00 subtracted from
preparedness funding adds $1.70 to suppression costs because of small
fires that escape to become large fires. Maintaining an adequate level
of preparedness will reduce overall fire management costs. The fiscal
year 2016 President's budget proposes $1.08 billion in Preparedness
funding.
We will continue pursuing our Large Airtanker Modernization
Strategy. Airtankers play a crucial role in keeping fires small. In
fiscal year 2016, the Forest Service expects to have up to 21
airtankers available. Fifteen will be next generation and six will be
legacy. One of the 16 will be a Forest Service C-130H. Our strategy is
to fund both the older aircraft still in operation (needed as we
transition to newer aircraft) and the next-generation airtankers
currently under contract.
We will also continue leveraging State and local firefighting
resources by providing State and volunteer fire assistance. State and
local fire departments are the first responders to almost 75 percent of
the Nation's wildfires, so investing in their capacity is a high
priority for the Forest Service. Federal grants are matched dollar for
dollar, extending the value of our investments. We propose funding the
State Fire Assistance Program at $78 million and the Volunteer Fire
Assistance Program at $13 million, both nearly equal to the fiscal year
2015 enacted levels.
promoting safety
Forest Service work can take us into high-risk environments.
Ensuring human safety entails recognizing and managing these risks. For
several years now, the Forest Service has been on a learning journey to
become a safer organization. Our efforts have resulted in a reduction
of work-related annual fatalities from a 5-year running average of 7.4
per year in 2009 to a current rate of 1.8 per year. We have also seen a
28-percent drop in new workers' compensation claims (from nearly 3,700
annual claims to 2,700 annual claims) over the same period. Our goal is
to become a zero-fatality organization by continuing to make safety an
integral part of our organizational culture.
building diversity and inclusiveness
At a time when the vast majority of Americans live in metropolitan
areas, part of the Forest Service's job is to reach out to urban and
underserved communities to give more people opportunities to get
outdoors, participate in public land management, and engage in
conservation work in their own communities. Building on USDA
priorities, we will create and retain a more diverse workforce that
reflects American society. Diversity of thought is key to allowing
successful organizations to respond to changing circumstances, and it
stems from hiring people from varied backgrounds. We will strive to
become an employer of choice for all Americans by continuing to treat
everyone fairly and respectfully and giving everyone in our workforce
the opportunity to contribute and succeed.
We will expand access to the outdoors for underserved and minority
communities and young people from urban areas by continuing to invest
in programs designed to reach out to urban youth. We will also build on
our work with partners to offer opportunities for youth in urban areas
to engage in conservation work in their own communities and on National
Forest System lands. We will continue to support the President's
America's Great Outdoors initiative, with its target of 10,000 students
serving on public lands. Forest Service Job Corps sites established
eight Public Lands Corps projects, enabling 1,825 Job Corps students to
participate in 21st Century Conservation Service Corps projects.
cost savings and avoidance
The Forest Service is committed to achieving the greatest benefits
for the taxpayer at the lowest cost. Mindful of the need for savings,
we have taken steps to cut operating costs. Taking advantage of new
technologies, the Forest Service has streamlined and centralized our
financial, information technology, and human resources operations to
gain efficiencies and reduce costs. We will maintain the $100 million
reduction in overhead costs (cost pools) implemented in fiscal year
2013-2014.
In 2012, we adopted a new planning rule designed to reduce the
length of time it takes to revise management plans, thereby reducing
costs. We are also reducing costs by making our environmental review
process under the National Environmental Policy Act more cost-
effective.
We have adopted new public-private partnership strategies for
leveraging restoration funding. For example, over 10 years the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is expected to
generate $152 million in partner funding. In 2010, we also signed an
agreement to use municipal funds to restore fire-damaged national
forest land in the municipal watershed of Denver, Colorado. Over 5
years, Denver Water is matching the Forest Service's own $16.5 million
investment in watershed restoration. We have signed similar agreements
with other cities.
future outlook
For more than a century, the Forest Service has served the American
people by ensuring that their forests and grasslands deliver a full
range of values and benefits. Americans benefit tremendously from
investments in Forest Service programs and activities.
We are now facing some of the greatest ecological challenges in our
history. Invasive species, climate change effects, regional drought and
watershed degradation, fuel buildups and severe wildfires, habitat
fragmentation and loss of open space, and devastating outbreaks of
insects and disease all threaten the ability of America's forests and
grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services Americans want
and need. In response, the Forest Service is increasing the pace and
scale of ecological restoration. We are working to create healthy,
resilient forest and grassland ecosystems capable of sustaining and
delivering clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, opportunities for
outdoor recreation, and many other benefits.
Our budget request focuses on our highest priorities: restoring
resilient landscapes; building thriving communities; and managing
wildland fire safely and effectively, all while continuing to cultivate
a highly diverse and inclusive workforce. We will continue to integrate
our programs and activities while advancing on our journey toward
becoming a safer organization that is more diverse and inclusive. We
will also continue to reduce our environmental footprint and improve
our administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness.
This concludes my testimony, Madam Chairman. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the subcommittee members have for me.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chief. Appreciate the
overview, the summary there.
Let's move straight to questions. Again to members, we will
do 6-minute rounds here.
BIG THORNE SALE
I want to start off my questions this morning going local,
talking about the Tongass. We spend a lot of time talking about
the Tongass, and there has been a lot of discussion over the
past several years about how the Big Thorne sale is going to be
that sale that allows everything to kind of be pieced together.
But you and I both know that not only is the timber sale
caught up in litigation, but now even planning and other non-
ground-disturbing activities associated with the Big Thorne
sale are in jeopardy because of litigation through the
Endangered Species Act.
Now you have mentioned that the Forest Service has done
significant work on endangered species issues relating to Big
Thorne, but give me some reason for optimism this morning about
the chances, the likelihood, of this sale going forward this
spring as we need it to in order to, again, allow this all to
be pieced together.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chair, you are aware of the
preliminary injunction motions that we received on this sale.
We have already filed our first brief on the first one, and we
will be shortly filing our second brief on the second one. I am
going to remain confident that we have done an adequate level
of analysis to address the issues, that we have made changes in
the decision to address those issues months ago.
So I am going to remain confident that we are going to be
able to get a favorable ruling and be able to move forward with
the implementation of the Big Thorne sale. It is essential that
we provide the bridge timber that is necessary as we transition
to second growth. But it is also just another reason for us to
be able to look at every opportunity we have while we are
moving forward with the bridge timber, bringing the second
growth timber supply online at the same time. I still think
that is our best solution.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about that because, in
this day and age, when we are dealing with litigation based on
our timber sales, quite honestly, we don't have a lot of reason
to be optimistic, and it is greatly concerning to me. Even if
the Big Thorne sale makes it out of litigation, there is really
nothing by way of additional volume behind it. We have Saddle
Lakes and Wrangell that have been repackaged, reanalyzed, so
many times, and yet we haven't seen timber out of either of
these sales.
So what we have going on is kind of a repackaging,
basically planning the same sale for five different times. That
isn't necessarily progress, because we are not seeing wood
harvested.
SADDLE LAKES SALE
So a question to you about your prognosis on the Saddle
Lakes sale: Do you think that we are going to see that out this
year? And if so, what will the volume likely be? And do you
anticipate that we are going to get sued over that one as well?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I will not speculate on what will happen
with litigation, but we are moving forward with the Kosciusko
sale this year, and we are moving forward with Wrangell and
Saddle Lakes, whether they'll be offered this year or the next
year. They'll be no later than 2016, as part of our bridge
timber.
And we are committed to providing that bridge timber, but
at the same time to be moving forward with bringing on some
sales with the second growth.
The solution here is also to look at these larger,
multiyear contracts, just like we have with Big Thorne, so that
there is some certainty. When I look at what it is going to
take to move to second growth, we have to provide the certainty
of the material, and at the same time provide support for
retooling of the infrastructure there.
If we can put that together with our bridge timber program,
then I am confident that we can have a successful transition.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you can probably see my
expression. I am not confident at all. You have litigation that
continues to be a huge hurdle. You are saying a certainty that
is needed here, but yet you have this transition to second
growth, where you and I know there is great question as how
long it is going to take until that second growth is actually
ready and will be able to provide a level of harvest that is
going to make a difference in the total scheme of things.
So this transition that we keep talking about is more
theoretical, more on paper, than actually being able to
translate.
RETOOLING
Question for you, regarding litigation, how much is Forest
Service spending in the Tongass responding to litigation? Then
before my time is up, you mentioned the retooling efforts. I
mentioned to you in the Energy Committee last week or 2 weeks
ago about the skepticism that I had on the effectiveness of the
transition plan and said I am hoping that the administration is
still going to be there when it comes to retooling. We haven't
seen any of that. We haven't seen this transition aid that we
had talked about. You mentioned at that time that you were
going to look into the issues with the Credit Reform Act and
potentially reprogramming as it relates to transition
assistance. So I would like to know whether you have any
additional information on that Credit Reform Act, but also if
you can give me the number on what we are spending on
litigation with Tongass sales?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, your last question first, Madam Chair,
is that we have looked into that, and we will not need to have
a reprogramming request. We have the funding available and the
authority to be able to now sit down and be able to look at how
we can work together, provide the necessary grants, and to be
able to move forward with retooling that infrastructure.
Senator Murkowski. Will that happen this year?
Mr. Tidwell. We are ready to move forward with it this
year. We will probably be asking for assistance from your staff
to be able to work with the mill owners about how to put a
package together to be able to move forward with that.
Then on what we are spending on litigation, I will have to
give back to you on that. It is not something we normally
track.
Senator Murkowski. It has to be a huge expense for you.
Mr. Tidwell. It is the same staff that prepare the
projects. It is the same staff that puts a lot of the planning
together. They then have to be able to pull the information
together to put the records together for the court and work
with the attorneys.
Senator Murkowski. Well, if you can get us that
information, I think it would be helpful, Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. We will give you an estimate of what it is
costing.
Senator Murkowski. All right, and we want to work with you
on these retooling funds.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to let
Senator Tester start on our side here with the questions.
Senator Tester. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank
you very much.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess the most important question I have for you, Chief
Tidwell--it is good to have you here. And you, too, Tony.
How's the ticker?
Mr. Tidwell. Woke up this morning, Senator, and I feel
great. Thank you for asking.
Senator Tester. Well, it is good to have you here.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Look, I don't need to tell you how important the sawmills
are as a partner to the Forest Service. We don't want to drive
these folks out of business, and then it all becomes a
taxpayer-funded problem as far as forest management. I
understand there was about 125-plus million board feet come out
of the forests in Montana on about 9,000 acres. Eighty percent
from my figures were either post and poles or saw logs, and 20
percent was firewood.
That sounds about correct? Your head is nodding?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Tester. Okay, good.
So in terms of sound forest management, are you happy with
those numbers?
Mr. Tidwell. It is not near enough of what we need to be
doing to change the conditions on the landscape, to restore the
resiliency of those forests, and to reduce the wildland fire
threat to our communities.
I have tried to be really clear about the challenge we have
in front of us, and the need for us to increase the pace and
scale of restoration of our Nation's forests.
Senator Tester. So if you had a magic wand, what would that
number be? Or do you have a number for Montana? Would it be
double that, triple that, half again as much?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I would look at the number of acres.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. And I think that is really a key point that we
need to be really focused on. We are talking 9,000 acres, and I
think there is around 17 million acres of national forest in
your State.
Senator Tester. In Montana, yes.
Mr. Tidwell. When I look at the need there, we need to be
treating a lot more of the 9,000 acres. I can give you a more
accurate figure, but it definitely needs to be probably closer
to at least four times that each year.
Senator Tester. Okay. And so what is the challenge that
your agency faces? Is it a manpower issue? What is it?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, definitely capacity is an issue. We are
running at 35 percent fewer employees than what we had the last
time we were approaching 3 billion board feet operations. We
haven't been able to implement a lot of efficiencies over the
past. We are looking forward to moving forward with the Farm
Bill authorities.
Your State has been a leader on that. That is going to also
help us.
The other thing is that, and especially in your State, we
need to be able to move forward with some larger landscape
projects, similar to what we have done in your neighboring
States, where we can look at, not thousands, but tens of
thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres with one
environmental assessment.
FARM BILL
Senator Tester. Amen. I agree with that.
So let's talk about the farm bill stuff for a second that
came out of the 2014 farm bill.
Your forest supervisors, are they fully engaged in that? Do
they know the tools that are available?
Mr. Tidwell. They are. We are continuing to do addition
training, and to be able to make sure they understand these new
authorities and how to use those. It was there in the northern
region where they did actually the first project. It was done
last December. I think in your State, there are another five or
six scheduled for this year.
WORKFORCE
Senator Tester. Okay, so I want to ask a little bit about
manpower. In Region 1, our region, there are about 15
vacancies. That is about a quarter of your workforce. What are
the implications of that from a forest management standpoint,
and from a law enforcement standpoint, and a recreational
standpoint?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we have had reductions in our workforce
across-the-board and all the programs outside of our fire
operations. So it has forced us to really set priorities about
what work we can get accomplished, and recognizing there are
just less employees than what we have had.
At the same time, we continue to explore finding more ways
to be more efficient. This budget request does allow for us to
be able to get more forest restoration work done. It would
allow us to be able to issue more contracts. It would allow us
to actually hire a few more people. So it is moving in the
right direction for us to be able to change this curve, this
trend that we have been on.
LAND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Senator Tester. Okay, now I want to talk about the Land
Water Conservation Fund for just a second. As you know, Montana
has a number of collaborative efforts that are moving on,
landscape scale, as you talked about, and forest management. I
think LWCF plays a critical role in that success.
Could you speak, and I have only a little over a minute
left, but could you speak to what would happen if Congress
fails to reauthorize LWCF, on a lot of the projects, whether in
Montana or somewhere else? What would happen?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I think over time it would be more
challenging for us to be able to address issues with endangered
species, for instance. You would see some lands in your State
and other States that would be converted to some type of
nonproductive use, just because without the Forest Legacy
Program, we would be losing that opportunity for conservation
easements. Also, our costs for managing will stay the same
because we still have to work around these small, isolated
parcels. So you see those costs.
But I think one of the key concerns is that as we see more
and more private landowners lock up their land and not allow
the public to cross their land to access the national forest--
and I can understand the reasons why they do that--that is what
we have the potential to lose.
So this program has been very successful, not only to
provide certainty on access, but reduce costs. But especially
in your State, when I look at the recovery of just the grizzly
bear, and the work that we have done to acquire key parcels to
provide connectivity between the various populations with
grizzlies, without the LWCF program, there is no way we would
have been able to acquire those corridors and be in such a
successful position. We are now able to increase our active
management because we provided for the habitat requirements for
the grizzly bear.
Senator Tester. Okay, well thank you, Chief. I appreciate
your answers, and I also, just in closing, would say that I
think that the firefighting costs and the fire suppression
costs, I support you on the cap adjustment on that. I think it
is critically important if you are going to do your job on a
lot of things you just talked about.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Blunt.
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Chief, I want to talk to you a little about the Mark Twain
National Forest. This is a topic we talked about last year.
Last we talked about the Collaborative Forest Landscape Program
in the Mark Twain, and I asked you at that hearing whether or
not there would be prescribed burns that year. You answered
that this coming year, you said you didn't know, that on that
project they were going to be focused on doing timber harvest
and not prescribed burning.
Let me read that exactly so we know what you said. Your
quotes were, ``This coming year, I do know''--``I do know''--
``that, on that project, they are going to be focused on timber
harvest and not prescribed burning.'' That is the end of your
quote last year.
Now your staff then did call shortly after that and said
you were mistaken, and so we put in the language last year in
the bill, the report language, including the language that the
subcommittee recommends that no funds shall be used for
prescribed fires under the Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands portion
of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program
(CFLRP) until such time as the controversy over whether it
could possibly be successful was being resolved.
There had been at least two burns in early February, so
when we contacted the Forest Service on that, they said, well,
we are actually conducting those burns under a different
program.
I thought the language was pretty clear that until we got
this worked out that, we wouldn't be conducting--or we
recommended that you not conduct those burns. You just feel
like the language just doesn't give any direction? Or that you
are not bound by what the subcommittee would like to see happen
here?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we want to work with the subcommittee
and, of course, follow the direction you provide. But on the
Mark Twain last year, they sold 54 million board feet of timber
and harvested 48 million. When I look at that level of
activity, and then with the prescribed burning that we need to
do to be able to maintain and restore those forests, we need to
do that together.
We want to use our timber sales to be able to remove the
merchantable material and make full use of that, but then at
the same time, prescribed burning is one of the tools that we
use to reduce the residual material that is left after a timber
sale. So we need to be able to maintain the use of both tools.
Now I know that in the past, there was a prescribed burn
that did burn up some merchantable timber. I understand that
happens from time to time. But often, we can just come back in
there and salvage that material.
So we really do need to be able to maintain the flexibility
to do both. But we are always going to focus on using a timber
sale or a stewardship contract to remove the merchantable
material and then use prescribed burning to be able to remove
the undergrowth.
PRESCRIBED BURNING AND SAVANNAH RESTORATION
Senator Blunt. So your testimony today would be that the
prescribed burn is for that purpose, and no longer for the
purpose of trying to restore the Savannah from some past time
until we know whether that is possible. That really was the
discussion we had last year about whether or not we have really
had the science to know if under today's conditions you could
ever restore the Savannah from a couple of hundred years ago,
even if you burned everything down and started all over again.
What are you burning for now?
Mr. Tidwell. Depending on which project----
Senator Blunt. In the Mark Twain, are the burns to try to
restore the Savannah, or are the burns to truly get under the
fueling levels?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it would be depending on which project.
If we are following a timber sale, we would often use a
prescribed burn to follow that. If we are trying to restore the
Savannah, to be able to use fire, to be able to do that in
conjunction with mechanical treatment, it is the work that
needs to be done to restore these ecosystems.
Senator Blunt. Is there a study going on to determine
whether the Savannah could be restored or not?
Mr. Tidwell. I am not aware. I will have to get back to you
on that.
TIMBER SALES AND MONITORING RESULTS
Senator Blunt. All right, let's get back on that.
On the timber sales, while there is still a lot of timber
left, and you and I know that.
I will say, back to your earlier comment, the Missouri
forest products industry believes that you have worked hard to
try to identify in the last year harvestable and marketable
timber. So that is a positive. I have not got a lot of positive
things to say about this today, but that is a positive, and I
do appreciate that.
But, Chief, we just keep having such a hard time getting
information. Last year, I met with the regional forester,
Kathleen Atkinson, and asked for proof that this program could
work. The response was, we will get back to you on that. And,
of course, we never--not ``of course,'' but we didn't get any
information. Actually, amazingly, we didn't get any information
when we got back on that.
I brought this up to you last year. You stated that you
would share the monitoring information from the project and
research that guides the type of projects we are putting on the
ground. I don't think we got that information either.
I don't want to spend our time and effort here doing things
that can't work. In theory, in some of these burns, you are
trying to restore a landscape from a couple hundred years ago.
Surely, it is worth a little time to see the science of whether
that is even possible or not. I am just asking to work harder
with us to be responsive.
These questions are not designed to create a problem for
you. They are designed to try to help you and I together solve
a problem and see if we are moving toward a point that is
achievable. I don't think that is too much to ask.
I am just asking again today, Chief, to work with us on
that and be more responsive to both the science that may be out
there and the questions that we ask. I hope you can do that.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I will personally look into this and
provide you with the information we have from the monitoring
and the science that supports the work that they are trying to
get accomplished out there on the savannah.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Udall.
FIRE DISASTER CAP ADJUSTMENT
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Chief, I wanted to focus in a little bit on the budget
framework for fire suppression funding with the new disaster
cap adjustment. As you know, this subcommittee worked very hard
last year to pass this legislation as part of the 2015 Omnibus
appropriations bill. Ultimately, we weren't successful, but we
can't give up.
The disaster cap is the key to breaking the cycle of fire
borrowing and putting an end once and for all for the need to
steal funds from land management programs to pay for emergency
firefighting needs. Many of the programs that we borrow funding
from to fight fires are the same programs that create a more
resilient landscape to resist wildfire.
Can you talk about how important this proposal is to the
administration's overall vision for reducing the threats of
wildfires?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, it is essential. As we look at
what has happened just over the last 13, 14 years, the percent
of our budget has gone from around 14 percent to over 40
percent. If you add hazardous fuels funding into that, it gets
to over 50 percent of our budget that is now focused on dealing
with wildland fire.
Under a constrained budget, and as much as I would like to
tell you that the cost of suppression is going to go down in
the future, the 10-year average is going to continue to go up.
I think there are 2 years in the 10-year average that are less
than $1 billion. When those fall off the average, you are going
to see the 10-year average jump up.
It is just essential that we find a way to recognize that
we need to provide the funding for fire suppression the year
that it is occurring. We are going to take whatever actions
necessary to suppress fires where we need to suppress fires. As
impactful as it is for us to have to stop operations and
transfer funds, we have no choice, but we are going to do that.
So we are going to pay for the cost of fire suppression one
way or another. So the idea that we could just have a mechanism
so that we could pay for it during the current year instead of
shutting down operations and transferring money, and then
asking for Congress to repay those funds the next year, or the
year after--and I appreciate Congress' willingness to pay back
those funds over the years, but we cannot ever replace the time
that we have lost.
Often August and September, those are critical field
months. When we shut down operations, we never get that time
back. Often a project, even if it is just postponed, we often
lose the window to be able to implement it. Conditions change
on the landscape. So these are the impacts of this transfer
that are very hard for us to quantify.
Last year, we put out reports for every State that showed
the impacts to each State from having to transfer money. But it
did not begin to capture the impacts of just losing that time,
and that field season that we lost. So it is essential for this
program that we find a way to get this legislation passed and
that we no longer have to transfer money each year, and
recognize that a very small percentage, 1 percent of these
fires, should be treated as a natural disaster, not unlike
other natural disasters that we treat and fund accordingly.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chief. The one thing here that I
think is important, we have the budget process coming up. I
think it is very important, I hope you pass the message back to
Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Jewell, that they work with the
new budget chairs for the House and the Senate. I think if we
can get it in there, we will have a much better chance to
proceed.
VALLES CALDERA NATIONAL PRESERVE
In just the little bit of time I have left, we talked
yesterday--and thank you for coming into the office--about the
Valles Caldera National Preserve. Could you tell us how you
have resolved the funding issues there, and what you are
working on, and what you see the plans are for that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we are working closely with the National
Park Service. The lands were transferred last December, and the
funding that was provided for the Valles Caldera, we have that
ready to be transferred to the Park Service as soon as they
have their budget structure set up to handle that.
In addition, with the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration program (CFLRP) that encompassed part of the Valles
Caldera along with the adjoining national forest, we were not
able to transfer the CFLRP funds to the Park Service, but we
are transferring other appropriated funds to the Park Service
to be able to continue that work that was planned for this
year, and to continue to work with the trust that is in the
process of implementing the work.
So we have that money set aside, ready to be transferred to
the National Park Service. So as far as all the work that was
planned to occur this year in the Valles Caldera, that should
all go forward as planned.
Senator Udall. Great, thank you very much. We really
appreciate the Forest Service and the National Park Service
working together to make sure that there is a seamless
transition there. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Got a lot of Montanans here this
morning.
TIMBER SALES
Senator Daines. That is right. Montanans on that side.
Montanans on this side.
Good to have you here this morning, Chief Tidwell.
It was a month ago I was back home in Montana, travelled
across the State. And we spent a lot of time talking about what
is going on in our national forests and in timber. I was in
Columbia Falls. I was in Missoula. I was in Bozeman. We were
meeting with sawmill operators, sportsman groups, conservation
groups, county commissioners.
In fact, they have sawmill operators there who are looking
at layoffs that happened last fall because of, frankly, stopped
timber sales, and fears as spring breakup is coming up earlier
in the West because of the warm February and the warm early
start to March.
To hear a sawmill operator concerned, he has his son who
has some special medical needs, and to possibly lose their
health insurance, have to go to Spokane every week just for
this, just to hear these stories of the human condition right
now as we face declining access here to timber. Yet, here we
are surrounded by 17 million acres in Montana of forest, 11
million acres where they probably have access to if you
subtract out the wilderness and the roadless areas, and we
can't get enough logs.
I ask, what is the constraint? Why are the sawmills running
at two-thirds capacity across the State? Because we can't get
enough logs, as we are staring at 11 million acres of timber
that we could access on our Federal lands.
The Forest Service anticipates selling 3.2 billion board
feet of timber in fiscal year 2016. It is a modest increase
over this year's target. That is a step in the right direction,
but my understanding the ASQ, the allowable sale quantity, in
the plans by the Forest Service exceeds 6 billion board feet,
twice as much as what is being sold today.
We heard from groups across Montana a month ago, whether
from the sawmills to the conservation groups, that increasing
responsible harvest can have positive environmental and social
impacts, reducing the risk of wildfire. It is not going to be
the catchall, but it is part of management and risk reduction,
improving wildlife habitat, improving watersheds, improving
water quality, maximizing carbon sequestration in our forests,
and expanding recreational opportunities. So we have got
agreement on the spectrum back home.
And I know, Mr. Tidwell, your volume targets are informed
in large part by your resources and the time it takes to
prepare and execute timber sales, as you have noted today. But
setting aside those factors for a moment, do you agree that in
principle that increasing responsible harvest, consistent with
the forest plans, would have positive impacts on creating and
sustaining forest-related jobs, as well as improving the health
of the forest?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. I mean, you mentioned the level of
agreement that we have on what work needs to occur to restore
these national forests. It is greater today than it has ever
been in my entire career. We are seeing some progress being
made in other parts of the country more than what we are seeing
there in Montana, even though I appreciate the work that our
folks did last year working with all of our partners--they
basically put under contract the most acres and the most board
feet that we have had in a long time.
We are moving in the right direction, but it is not enough
of what is needed to really restore these forests. We need to
be able to look at these larger landscapes and to have more
multiyear contracts in place, so that those mill owners can
make the investments. They can take those contracts to the bank
to borrow the money.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Senator Daines. It is shocking talking to the mill
operators. When I asked where are you getting your logs today?
And literally today--here we are surrounded by millions of
acres of Federal lands in Montana--they are bringing logs in
from Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, and Canada, to try to keep
the mills operating. One of the challenges we are facing back
home, and, certainly, we are talking about this all time, is
looking what is going on with these objections and the
litigation.
Looking at the Region 1 staff data that was provided to us,
since the beginning of fiscal year 2009, 46 of the 65
noncategorical exclusion National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) projects with a timber component were appealed, or more
recently objected to. Twenty-five of the 65 were litigated.
The problem we have now with our timber folks back home is
they are giving up because of the uncertainty of pursuing the
path down--some say, why aren't they making more applications?
Well, there is so much uncertainty now on the outcomes because
of the objections and litigation and appeals and so forth, they
are going out of State and even to Canada to get logs today.
Even a number of the collaborative-driven projects have been
litigated or have litigation pending--the collaboratives. Colt
Summit was one of those, and the East Reservoir project on the
Kootenay.
In your recent testimony for the Energy and Resources
Committee, you indicated that such obstruction has an adverse
impact and clearly can divert Forest Service staff from
clearing new timber sales. So focusing now on looking at
solutions and working together on this, because I think we both
agree we have a problem, I think requiring all projects to go
through a pre-decision objections process was a good step, but
events on the ground in Montana suggest it is not sufficient.
It is not enough.
What additional solutions do you support to further
discourage unnecessary obstruction and litigation in Montana
and other impacted States, so the Forest Service can be
liberated to do its important work?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I think there are a couple things. We
need to first maintain what is proving to be successful, and as
you have mentioned, the collaborative efforts there in your
State are making a difference.
We have gone to court, and I will use Colt Summit as a
perfect example. When we have gone to court there, we not only
have the State and the county, but we have environmental groups
that are standing with the Forest Service, arguing to the judge
that this is a good project, this is a good timber sale.
Senator Daines. Just back on that, we agree on the
collaboratives. I support that. But even our collaboratives are
being litigated, so I think we need additional protections. I
guess what I would ask is--I am running out of time here--would
you commit to working with me to develop some mutually
acceptable solutions here to work through this?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. I am more than willing to sit down with
this subcommittee and with you personally to be able to look at
what we can do as we move forward to be able to build on the
success, to be able to get the treatment on the land that is
necessary to restore these forests.
I do believe the more that we can be talking about what is
needed on the land, what we need to be able to do to restore
these forests--and yes, one of the key outputs is going to be
timber. It is going to be saw logs. It is essential that we
maintain that integrated wood products industry. Otherwise,
there is no way we are going to be able to do the work.
Senator Daines. Well, we were at 600 million board feet at
the peak. We were at 100 million board feet last year. We have
been pretty flat. And so what we are asking for here is--we
understand we are never going to get the 600 million again,
most likely. It has been an over 80 percent decline. We have
lost 20 of our 30 sawmills--lost.
But what we would like to see is let's take that 100
million up to maybe 200 million, maybe 300 million board feet,
off of our Federal lands. That would be a tremendous boost
right now to our sawmills and to our timber industry back home,
as well as making our forests healthier.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
And our counties right now are dealing with Secure Rural
Schools (SRS) and so forth. They are in trouble because there
is no more revenues coming off the forests.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, once again, I commit to work
with you. I think your approach on that will be able to get it
up to a sustainable level that not only the industry can rely
on, but it will actually be enough acres being treated where we
can make a difference, so that 10 years from now, we can have a
different discussion about the conditions of the forest in your
State versus having the same discussion 10 years from now.
Senator Daines. I look forward to that discussion, too.
Thank you, Chief Tidwell.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Boy, you know, this conversation is just the same whether
you are up north in Alaska or whether you are sitting there in
Montana. It just is not improving.
TIMBER HARVEST
You are talking about what is going on in your region. Last
year, we noted in appropriations language that over the last 10
years, the timber supply in Region 10 up in Alaska has been
constrained to less than 10 percent of the allowable sale
quantity in the land management plan. We have seen handfuls of
our small mills closed down.
It just has not gotten any better. Whether it is in the
Tongass, or clearly the comments we have heard from both you
and Senator Tester here this morning, we talk about certainty
and the need for longer term contracts.
We are so with you there, Chief, so with you. In fact, we
agreed so much that we included in the report language from
fiscal year 2015 a directive to you, and said that in order to
restore confidence in this supply, and allow for investment in
new facilities, we reminded you of the Forest Service pledge to
prepare and offer the 4-year timber sales.
So we provided specific language. We directed the Forest
Service to prepare and offer within 2 years the four 10-year
timber sales as promised. So even when we provide that
directive to give us that longer term contract, to give us that
confidence, nothing on the ground changes.
I don't disagree that you have got a hard job here managing
things, but I don't know what to tell the folks in the Tongass
anymore, the guys that are trying to hold on to some family-
owned operations. And the only reason that they are still in
existence is because they and their families, this is what they
know. This is who they are. But they are no longer living in a
timber community. They are living in a community that is trying
to exist off subsidies that we throw them with Secure Rural
Schools. It is sad.
We can blame litigation. That is, certainly, a factor. But
I think we also have to recognize that the commitments that we
are receiving from the Forest Service are not translating into
increased harvest on our forests.
So I am discouraged. I am just discouraged, because I don't
know where the communities that I was born in like Ketchikan,
or raised in like Wrangell, I don't know where they go.
RECREATION, HERITAGE, AND WILDERNESS
I want to talk about the other aspects of industry within
the regional economy, because there is more than timber, we
know that. There is fishing. There is tourism.
Tourism is, of course, based on the recreational
opportunities out there, and yet in the last 5 years, the
recreation heritage and wilderness budget has dropped
approximately 14 percent across your budget. Alaska's
recreation budget has been hit extra hard, over 23 percent over
that same 5-year period.
Tell me why the recreation programs in Alaska is
disproportionately affected by past budget cuts compared to
other regions, and what can the Alaska region expect from this
2016 budget increase? Is it going to have any impact on the
issuance of operating permits?
I am trying to figure out whether there is any good news
here for the people in the Tongass, and I am searching hard.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chair, with recreation, it
actually supports more jobs than any other activity we have in
the national forests now. Over 200,000 jobs are supported
through recreation.
Senator Murkowski. Well, that is clear in Alaska because we
have run off the timber jobs.
Mr. Tidwell. And in the past, in Region 10, the Alaska
region, they have taken a greater, not proportionate, share of
reductions in recreation funding. We have had to make some very
difficult choices over the years as we have seen our budgets
under constraint. Our programs under constrained budget can be
very limiting to what we are able to do.
I do know that in fiscal year 2015, we did make a shift for
recreation funding in Alaska. They received an increase in what
they had been receiving in the past to address this
inconsistency. So as we move forward, we are going to look at
how to better balance all these programs together.
This budget request does maintain the level of recreation
funding. I wish it was more. But until we can fix this fire
issue, it takes up so much of our constraint that we are going
to continue to see these impacts. You will see slight increases
there in your State with recreational funding, but this is
something that needs to be addressed across-the-board.
We just have to find some ways to fix the fire suppression
issue, so that we can have more flexibility within our budget
requests to be able to address these issues.
ROADLESS RULE
Senator Murkowski. Well, Chief, I carry with me in the file
that I haul everywhere a few maps, because I am big into maps.
And if your policies are going to shut off our timber
opportunities in the Tongass, and you say, well, move to
recreation, move to tourism, and you disproportionately reduce
those dollars that go to Alaska, and then you tell us that part
of the plan is we have to move towards more renewable
resources. We absolutely agree there. But yet, we don't have
the ability to get around the roadless rule in Alaska.
It just kind of suffocates you after a while, and you have
seen my big map, the roadless area inventory. For colleagues,
this is the whole southeastern part of the State of Alaska.
This is also the Tongass, because Southeast is the Tongass.
Everything in red is categorized as roadless under the roadless
rule and is not available for renewable hydroelectric power or
other development.
So timber reduction and recreation, not even available for
accessing renewable hydroelectric power or other development
that will allow us to reduce our energy costs.
These are tough hearings for me, Chief. They are tough
because the people of my State bear the consequences.
So my time has expired. I am going to turn to my colleague.
Senator Udall will let Senator Leahy take a breath, or if
he's ready to go, we will turn to him. I am done here. We will
defer here.
Senator Udall. Senator Leahy, we are ready for you to go if
you want, or I will go ahead.
Senator Leahy. Why don't you go ahead?
SOUTHWEST ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INSTITUTE
Senator Udall. Okay, thank you very much.
Chief, the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute,
which is a collaboration between New Mexico Highlands
University, Northern Arizona University, and Colorado State
University, and the Forest Service, is a terrific source of
applied research and ideas for improving forest health,
preventing wildfires, protecting watersheds, creating jobs
connected to national forests.
With increasing effects from climate change, like prolonged
droughts and less snowpack in our national forests, there are
additional strains on the critical water resources in New
Mexico. The institute I think does great work in engaging and
educating people in New Mexico on forest and watershed
management, and I can't see a better time for them to be doing
this kind of work.
Despite the benefits of the Forest Service, the funding for
the institute has kind of stagnated in the last few years at
$1.5 million, even though they have submitted appropriate and
timely projects. Do you feel this level of funding is adequate
for the good work the Southwest Ecological Restoration
Institutes do? And is the funding for the three individual
institutes based on their annual submissions of projects, or is
it just based on historic levels of an archaic formula?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, just like with so many of our
programs, we have had to make some very difficult choices about
setting priorities with our constrained budget. Where I wish we
could provide additional funding for the institute, I do feel
that the funding we are providing allows them to build and
continue their programs.
They have been very helpful in the past, especially when
they first started to pull the information together about the
different treatments we need to do with ponderosa pine in
different parts of the southwest. Your questions about water,
drought, that needs to be addressed are another good reason for
this institute to continue.
We leave it up to the institute to decide the funding
between the different facilities, but I feel that this is a
good balance for where we are at right now. In the future, if
we once again can get into a different budget situation, no
longer having to put so much of our budget into fire, this
would also provide us an opportunity to expand these programs.
Senator Udall. That is why I led with the fire cap
situation, because I think we need to work with you on that, so
the other good programs that are going on in the Forest Service
budget, that they are able to be funded.
COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM
Shifting now to the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration program, New Mexico is home to two of the 23
current Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects. By
all reports, these projects are succeeding in improving habitat
and watershed quality, creating employment for youth and adults
from nearby Pueblos, Native American Pueblos, and increasing
timber production.
The President's budget calls for an increase of $20 million
for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program from
$40 million to $60 million. What are your plans for the
additional funding requested? Will you start new projects or
provide higher levels of funding to existing projects?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, it will be both. With the success we
are having with the 23 projects, there is a need to provide
some additional funding to those 23. But at the same time, we
also want to expand and be able to look at adding additional
projects online, recognizing that all of these projects, it
takes a few years for them to become fully effective. That is
what we are seeing with the projects that we have had online
now, some of them for 5 years, some for 3 years.
The report we will be sharing next week, will show the
accomplishments that we are making. These exceeded, when it
comes to acres of restoring our forest vegetation. The key
output of timber has exceeded. Areas about dealing with road
conditions is an area we need to expand work in, and also in
noxious weeds, another target area.
When we have talked to all of these 23, they all feel very
confident they are going to meet their 10-year goals, so we
want to use this report, we will be sending up, as another
reason why we should expand this program. It is really making a
difference.
The other key thing is that many of these projects, without
this program--and this comes from the members of the
collaboratives--they'll tell you that without this, there is no
way we would have been able to look at doing projects on 10,000
to 20,000 acre areas without extensive appeals and objections
or lawsuits. That is the other benefit of this program. The way
it is designed, the collaborative requirements that have gone a
long way to reducing the conflicts and controversy, and allows
us to be able to do these projects on much larger scales, and
that is an additional benefit.
Senator Udall. And you really hit it on the head. I think
the two projects in New Mexico, the Southwest Jemez Mountains
project and Zuni Mountains project near Gallup, New Mexico,
they have worked collaboratively. Where you may have had a
situation where there was litigation or it was slowed down,
because of this collaborative work, they have been able to move
forward. So we appreciate all the good work there.
Senator Daines, did you have another round?
Senator Daines. I do, and then I will be finished.
Senator Udall. Okay, that is fine. I am finished.
TIMBER HARVEST TARGET IN MONTANA
Senator Daines. All right, appreciate it.
So I want to go back. Senator Tester brought up a point of
discussion. You indicated that, ideally, harvests in Montana
national forests could be at four times in terms of acreage. I
think it was that 9,000-acre question, that we could increase
by four times the number of acres versus what is currently
being done. And just looking at the numbers, I know in Montana
last year, about 113 million board feet is what was harvested.
Our allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for Montana Federal lands is
371 million board feet, and I think our sustainable long-term
yield is 440 million.
There is an old saying, ``If you aim at nothing, you will
hit it,'' so I just want to get to the numbers here for a
moment.
Of that 113 million board feet that was harvested last
year, a significant part of that, about a third, was firewood.
As we are looking at moving forward trying to increase these
numbers, do you think given the acreage, the four times the
number that was discussed, do you think it would be reasonable
to suggest we might be able to at least double our volumes,
given that we are a quarter of our long-term sustainable yield,
we are a third of our ASQs. I mean, seems like doubling would
not be unreasonable?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, I think last year, the region
met its target, self-imposed target, close to 300 million board
feet. That shows you an example of the work that needs to be
done, and be able to sustain that and actually build on that.
I go back to my time when I was in the region, and when we
looked at the conditions of the forests and what really was
needed--the level of treatment, the number of acres that needed
to be restored--that 300 million board feet, it is just one of
the key outputs. But it does reflect on the number of acres
that need to be treated.
Your other point that you made about the biomass that is
being removed, it is a combination of saw logs, posts and
poles, and firewood. I think the more that people understand
what we are about, what we are trying to accomplish on the
landscape, I think that can go a long way to address some of
the conflict we still see in Montana.
There are perceptions out there that folks believe that
when we are proposing restoration work that includes a timber
sale, that it is a clear cut from ridge top to streamside. Then
they base a lot of their opposition on that level of concern
versus the reality that we are restoring these forests,
thinning out these forests.
Senator Daines. They are healthier forests. It is
environmentally the best thing we can do right now. It's
responsible timber practices.
I guess coming back to the point, do you think, just
looking at the raw metrics here, that if we are at 113 million
board feet, and we were once at time at 600 million, and we
have got ASQs at 371, long-term has a 440, I mean, thinking of
getting something between 200 million and 300 million board
feet seems like a reasonable target to shoot for.
Mr. Tidwell. The 300 million board feet is very reasonable.
OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES: MINIMUM WAGE EXEMPTION
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
I want to shift gears for a moment to an issue our
outfitters are having back home. Outfitters and guides in
Montana, they are the ultimate small-business owners in
Montana. Usually, it is a husband and wife running the
operation. They don't have a big human resources department.
They don't have a legal department. It is usually a couple
folks trying to make ends meet.
They have expressed concerns to me about the Forest Service
application, the Department of Labor final rule enforcing the
new minimum wage regulations for Federal contractors.
I really think the States could take the lead in this
issue. The State of Montana recognizes this industry of
outfitting is unique. It is a unique industry in Montana. It
serves an important purpose, to protect our outdoor heritage
and, certainly, the unmatched landscapes we have.
In fact, Montana has carved out in exemption for outfitters
and guides in its overtime pay requirements because of the
nature of the business.
Chief Tidwell, considering the severe economic impact on
these small businesses in looking at this $10.10 mandate coming
out of Federal Government, and the value that outfitters and
guides provide to public lands, would the Forest Service
consider a similar exemption to overtime requirements like we
did in the State of Montana?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, we are currently looking at the
Department of Labor's rule to really understand the flexibility
that is provided within that rule, especially when it comes to
outfitters and guides. I fully recognize the problems, and the
issues.
I want to first take the time that we need to fully
understand the flexibility that is within the Department of
Labor rule, so that we can move forward with this in a way that
also will work for the outfitters and guides.
Senator Daines. And they have been a great partner. I know
they have worked together on performing trail maintenance,
wildlife monitoring. It is kind of the boots on the ground out
there, in terms of what is going on in our national forests and
the wilderness. I just would ask if you would take into account
the impacts on the outfitting industry in this proposed rule
coming from the Federal Government and will work with our State
folks back home. We have solved that problem in the State of
Montana by carving out an exemption with the uniqueness of the
outfitters and overtime.
This is not just punching the clock in that kind of
business. I would just ask if you would help us on this. They
are very, very concerned as they are looking at their permits
going forward and how they make ends meet with these mandates
coming out of Washington.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I share your concerns, understand their
concerns, about how to move forward with this in a way that is
fair, and also, at the same time, that it is workable for them.
The last thing we want to do is to put anyone out of business.
That eliminates the jobs.
Senator Daines. It does, and they have these great stories
where they are taking some of these kids where they maybe have
challenging pasts. They bring them out for a summer. They spend
a summer in the wilderness, out there with an outfitter, and
they are life-changing experiences for these kids. There are
concerns that they can't provide those opportunities with these
mandates on these wage issues coming out of Washington. They
just don't make any sense for us on the ground back home.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we are anxious to fully understand the
flexibility that is provided in the rule, so that we can look
at it. We are in somewhat of a unique situation. When it comes
to a contract to do roadwork or something like that, the
proposals can factor the additional wages into their bids, so
it is equitable, it is easy. With our outfitter and guide
permits, especially since they don't all expire at the same
time either, so that is the other challenge.
Senator Daines. That is the exemption, the carve-out that
we are looking for that would be helpful.
Thank you. I am out of time.
Senator Udall. The Senator's time has expired. Thank you,
Senator Daines.
Senator Leahy.
FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
Chief, good to see you. Mr. Dixon, good to see you.
We have a lot of people, as you know, who when they talk
about the U.S. Forest Service, think first and foremost of the
National Forest System. Of course, those of us who live in the
Northeast and those in the South know you do a lot of work
beyond the national forest boundaries.
You have a lot of support of private forest landowners.
Owning a tree farm in Vermont, which we do without any
subsidies, I will quickly add, I am well aware of what you do.
And I am concerned we are losing private forestland at a very
alarming rate, some to subdivisions, but usually conversion to
nonforest uses.
So I was pleased to see the strong funding request for the
Forest Legacy program. This is near and dear to my heart since
I included the program, back in the 1990 Farm Bill when I was
chairman, but it has conserved close to 2.5 million acres of
working forest. I mean, you know all these numbers. I just want
to put it on the record.
Fiscal year 2016, States submitted a list of eligible
Forest Legacy projects that require $147 million in Federal
funding and probably leverage another $90 million in private
funds. But last year, we were able to fund this program at only
$53 million.
If we were able to increase the funding for Forest Legacy,
do you believe that there is sufficient supply of top-quality
projects across the country?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, there is no question. We have always
had more requests with very high-quality projects than we are
able to fund. These are projects that come from the States.
Each State puts together their list and then they send it in.
We have a national committee go through the projects and set
the priorities. So these are strongly supported by the States,
local communities, and they are all willing landowners. We have
never, ever been able to come close to funding all the projects
that we would like to.
Senator Leahy. These are projects that you have looked at
and said, look, they are valid projects, if we had the money,
we would do it?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, there is no question about the validity
and the benefits, not only to the landowner, but the benefits
to the public with these projects.
WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME
Senator Leahy. The other area I have been talking for years
about is white-nose syndrome in bats. I remember when I first
raised it, people thought I was referring to a character I
heard about in a comic book named Batman. But as you know and I
know, it is wreaking havoc across the country.
We have a lot of farms and huge farms that suddenly are
going to have to switch to use far more pesticides to control
the pests that bats used to naturally keep in check. I think it
is in around 25 States, and is now one of the most destructive
wildlife diseases. We are watching very closely in Vermont as
the Fish and Wildlife Service considers what we do.
Some are concerned that the endangered species protection
of the Northern long-eared bat, it may actually be
counterproductive. It may negatively impact our forestland
management, but not do anything on white-nose syndrome.
Are there resources the Forest Service can provide to help
the private landowners to address dwindling bat populations,
but also to encourage them in conservation practices? I realize
that is a kind of a generalized question, but I hear it in
various forms back home.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, first, Senator, thank you for your early
recognition of this problem. I can remember when we first
started closing access to caves, there was a lot of opposition
to that and folks questioned the Forest Service. Fortunately,
we were able to take some steps to slow down the spread.
We are continuing our research to look at ways to be able
to use native soil bacteria to maybe slow down the fungus, and
using some ultraviolet light treatments to be able to reduce
the effectiveness of the fungus. But, it is going to take a
while for our bat populations to recover from the white-nose
syndrome.
At the same time, we have concerns about the potential
listing of especially the long-eared bat, and if it could have
any impacts on our ability to restore the Nation's forests. So
we are working very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service
so that they have the science that we have about white-nose
syndrome. Also, they'll fully understand our practices when it
comes to maintaining and restoring the Nation's forests. And I
look at having healthy, resilient forests as also good for the
bats.
Senator Leahy. Your stewardship contracting authority, can
that help?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, both our stewardship contracting
authority can help, and also our Forest Stewardship program
that we have that provides assistance to private landowners, so
they can put in place the forestry practices that they need to
be able to restore the forests and maintain sustainable forests
on their private land.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
I am getting a little more familiar with that bat of yours.
I do understand it eats the mosquitoes, and that is a good
thing.
Senator Leahy. Yes, I think we need really big ones to go
after the mosquitoes in Alaska. I have heard you talk about
getting the baseball bat and going after them. But I have
actually seen a difference at our own tree farm in Vermont.
When we sit out there in the evening, we could always count on
several bats from a small bat cave about a quarter of a mile
behind our house. Bats would come out and there would be no
mosquitoes. Those bats have disappeared. The mosquitoes are now
back.
I don't mean that as a scientific analysis, but I can just
imagine what it must be like if you have hundreds of acres of
farmland, and you count on the bats to keep the pests down.
This is a problem.
TSUNAMI DEBRIS
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate you bringing it up.
Chief, I have just a couple more Alaska-specific, and then
my final question will be as it relates to the air tankers.
This first one is just more of a heads-up.
I met with the head of NOAA, Dr. Sullivan, and mentioned to
her when we are talking about tsunami debris clean up along
Alaska's coastal shores, we have great efforts, collaborative
efforts, to address the tsunami debris. But, as you know, so
much of the land along our coast, whether it is in the Tongass
or up into the Prince William Sound area and the Chugach, these
are our national forest areas, once the debris is collected,
you have got to cache it somewhere until it can be airlifted
out or barged out.
It was brought to my attention that they had had great
cooperation working with the folks at the Chugach, in terms of
dealing with Forest Service lands and being able to talk
cooperatively, but not so much on the Tongass. Now, we are
trying to chase it down, but what I was told was that basically
the Forest Service in the Tongass had said don't bring the junk
up above the tidelands, we don't want that to be our problem.
We are chasing that down, because I understand there have
been good cooperative efforts in marine debris cleanup in the
lower part of southeast, but I am just giving you a heads-up on
that. I don't ask you to address it today, but just to be aware
of it.
SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT, TRANSPORTATION EQUALITY ACT
(SAFETEA)
One thing that did come to our attention just yesterday was
a letter that the Governor sent our delegation. It was pretty
distressing. It said that the Government, your agency, is
refusing to follow a 2005 agreement with the State after Alaska
has fulfilled its side of the agreement years ago. This is
relating to Federal highway funding back in 2005 under SAFETEA-
LU.
The State had granted the Federal Government access
easements across all submerged lands in return for the Federal
Government granting easements for State transportation projects
across some identified corridors that were identified by a map
in Section 4407 of the law. The act said, not withstanding any
other provision of law, this agreement was approved.
So now we have the Forest Service saying it cannot provide
the easements within the corridors identified back in 2005
because of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues
and concerns that NEPA reviews are required, and because the
corridors aren't inventoried roadless area lands.
Looking at that letter and given the language of the
Section 4407, it is just not acceptable. Congress exempted the
corridors from NEPA. It exempted the corridors from inventoried
roadless regs, even though, at the time, the roadless rules in
effect in Alaska, because of the 2003 settlement agreement
between the State and Forest Service--an agreement that the
administration lost little time in not supporting once court
review began again.
So I don't know whether you are on top of this issue. It
just came to my attention. And again, it is very, very
unsettling, and just not acceptable.
I don't know if you have comment on that at this time.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I am not aware of this. I appreciate
you bringing it up. I will look into it.
AIR TANKERS
Senator Murkowski. All right, I would appreciate that. So
we will talk back and forth on that.
Then the question that I alluded to in my opening was where
we are with air tankers, and I don't think any colleagues have
brought it up here this morning. But I think we all understand
the need to modernize our air tanker fleet. The fiscal year
2015 omnibus provided $65 million for air tanker modernization.
I understand that at this point in time, you haven't finalized
the plans to spend out the money, but a few questions about
where you may be going with this.
Have you conducted a cost comparison between acquiring air
tankers and contracting planes?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, with the funding that was provided in
fiscal year 2015 to acquire an aircraft, we have entered into a
contract to get a business case prepared to be able to look at
what is the best way to move forward, which aircraft to
acquire. We have done, in the past, some analysis between
government-owned aircraft versus contract-owned aircraft, and
we can provide the information that we put together on that. It
is part of our overall strategy.
This year we will have 21 large air tankers under contract
by the peak of the fire season, in addition to being able to
bring down planes from Alaska and Canada. Then also, we always
have the mass units that are in reserve for that.
Then we will be moving forward with bringing on the C-130Hs
that were provided to us. We will have one late this fire
season that will have a mass tank in it, and it will probably
be around 2016 or 2017 before we bring those planes on.
We are looking at the cost to operate those government-
owned versus contract. They are going to be comparable costs as
far as operation and maintenance. We are going to contract out
both the operation and the maintenance of those large air
tankers. But we feel we need to have a mix of contracted
aircraft and also government-owned, just so that we are never
in a position like we were a few years ago, where we had to
cancel a contract and it put us in a really tough situation in
the middle of fire season.
So having a combination of both where the government will
own a few aircraft, and it will be contracted out for operation
and maintenance, and then the majority of our fleet will be
contracted aircraft, we see that as the best path forward.
Senator Murkowski. So is that how you are going to be
entering this coming fire season with this mix? And again, have
you resolved or completed your analysis on the cost comparisons
here?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we have done cost comparisons with the
C-130Hs which are being provided to us. Those costs are going
to be comparable to what we have with our contracted fleet.
This year, we will have all contracted aircraft. The first
C-130H, we will bring it on probably late this year. It will
have a mass tank in it. We will use the aircraft in some
limited basis just understanding some of the changes we want
the Air Force to make on them before we receive the other
planes. But this year, we will be only operating with the
contracted aircraft.
Senator Murkowski. And then next, hopefully?
Mr. Tidwell. They'll be coming on probably in 2016 and
definitely in fiscal year 2017. We should have at least three
of them.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, thank you.
Senator Udall.
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS AND LAND GRANT HEIRS
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a couple of more questions here, Chief, from me.
As you are probably aware, and I think we talked a little
about it yesterday, but my State has a unique history with
early Spanish settlers who received land grants from the King
of Spain. We are talking now going back 400 years, in that
range. These grants were subsequently recognized under Mexican
law, and finally, to an extent, by the United States under the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the end of the Mexican-American
War.
These non-Indian traditional communities still practice
activities they have practiced with their families for
generations. They do things like harvesting pinon nuts in the
forests. They collect latias, which are utilized in buildings.
They gather wood for heating in the winter and a variety of
other projects.
Most of the original land grant lands now overlap with
Federal public lands primarily managed by the Forest Service,
so it is important that these activities are considered during
the current management plan revision process. As you know, your
forest management plans are going through a revision in New
Mexico, and that is happening in all of our national forests.
So will you commit to work with the land grant heirs in New
Mexico to provide reasonable access and consultation on land
management decisions?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, yes. Our foresters are already
reaching out to these folks to make sure that they are involved
in the forest planning. I think on the Cibola, they even have
them signed up as a cooperating agency, which I think is
probably even the best way for us to be able to move forward.
So we can make sure we are factoring in their traditional
uses of the land in our planning. I feel very confident that we
will be able to work closely with them to be able to continue
these traditional uses.
FOREST SERVICE BILINGUAL OUTREACH
Senator Udall. Great, thank you very much.
And, Chief, this is also related, because as you probably
know, related to the last question, we have a large bilingual
Hispanic population. I think the numbers is, in more than a
third of the households in New Mexico, Spanish and English are
spoken in the home. Many listen to Spanish-language radio and
watch Spanish-language TV.
Can you talk about the Forest Service's bilingual outreach
to Hispanic families and to Hispanics in New Mexico, if you are
familiar with that?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator. We have increased our efforts,
not only our written products that are also produced in
Spanish, but also to increase the opportunity where, if we need
a translator in discussions we are having, whether it is with
grazing permittees or just with operators, many of our
employees in your State are also Spanish-speaking. So we are
fortunate that we have that level of diversity in our
workforce.
But we want to take every effort that is necessary so that
there are ways that everyone understands the full benefits of
their national forests, about how to take advantage of this,
how to understand the rules and regulations. We know that we
have to increase our efforts to make sure that we are
communicating.
In your case, we are trying to make sure that all of our
written materials are also put out in Spanish, and at the same
time make sure we have the language skills necessary to be able
to communicate effectively.
Senator Udall. We actually have a constitutional
requirement in New Mexico for bilingual materials at the State
level, to show how much that Spanish history is reflected in
our constitution.
LAS CONCHAS FIRE AND UTILITY COMPANIES
Let me also just ask a quick question. There is an issue
with the Las Conchas fire. It was started by a downed power
line, which brings up the issue of maintaining rights-of-way on
Forest Service land that is really critical. I just wonder, is
the Forest Service working with utilities to ensure that fires
like the Las Conchas will never happen again, even without
setting aside funding specifically for partnerships to do that,
and working with these co-ops? And I think you are familiar
with this issue.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, a few years ago, we increased our
efforts to work with the utility companies, not only to ensure
that their rights-of-way are cleared of hazardous materials,
and reducing potential of a tree coming down on their lines,
but also to work with them to be able to expand doing fuels
treatment beyond the rights-of-way. Many of the companies
recognize that even a fire that doesn't take down a line, if
they have to shut it down because of the smoke impact, whether
it is a few days or a week, that it reduces not only the
effectiveness of the line, but it reduces their ability to
collect revenues off of that line.
So we are actually expanding our work beyond the rights-of-
way, but actually to work with them in a partnership where they
have their equipment in there to be able to address larger
areas to reduce the fuels, to eliminate those tragic situations
when we do get a power line that comes down and starts a fire.
AIR TANKERS
Senator Udall. Great.
Chairman Murkowski mentioned the Coast Guard C-130Hs and
what you are working on there. I also believe it is urgent that
we try to get your airplanes up and running, especially now
that we are going to be heading into the fire season again. So
however we can help on that, we really want to get that moving.
RESEARCH FUNDING QUESTIONS
I have a couple of other questions I will submit for the
record. They involve cuts that involve research and things like
that, which I am sure have been caused by the situation we have
with your forest fire funding in your agency. We have a
situation where you have to pull money out to fight fires, and
so some of the other crucial areas are cut.
So I will submit those for the record, and really
appreciate the hearing today, Madam Chair.
TIMBER HARVEST
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
And, Chief, thank you for being here with us this morning.
Again, I acknowledge that you do have a tough job in balancing
so much when it comes to management of our forests and the
multiple use requirement.
I know that we talk a lot about we have to resolve the fire
borrowing, because that has kind of infiltrated decisions in so
many other areas. But I think we also need to be honest that it
doesn't all come back to fire borrowing. We can't blame it all.
There are some policies that I think we have seen the
administration take that have moved us away from that part of
the multiple use which is managing our forests for timber
harvest. I think that has been a policy decision that has
shifted, whether it is in Montana or whether it is in Alaska or
other parts of the country.
So I would like us to get to that point where, again, we
have agreement that our forests are a renewable resource, a
renewable resource that needs to be managed, and carefully
managed. The better we manage them, I think we know that works
to reduce some of the hazardous fuels risks that we have and
that we pay for.
So as you move forward with implementation of your policies
under these budgets, I think it is important that you hear
where this subcommittee is coming from. And I think there have
been several asks of members for you to work with them in a
specific direction. I know we, certainly, have that. And I
appreciate your willingness to do so.
But again, I do share a little bit of the concern and,
perhaps, disappointment that we have not been able to do better
by some of our timber-reliant communities across the country.
So again, Chief, I appreciate your leadership in difficult
areas, and I thank you for coming before the subcommittee this
morning.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Tom Tidwell
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. The budget request calls for on overall reduction to
Research and Development of about $4 million from the 2015 level. And,
within this overall reduction is a proposed increase of $13 million in
the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. As a supporter of FIA,
I am glad the Service has acknowledged the importance of the program
and requested enough funding to extend FIA to interior Alaska. It is my
understanding that the request is upwards of $5 million more than
necessary to keep funding robust and to expand the program.
What activities would the additional $13 million fund?
Answer. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Strategic Plan
recently submitted to Congress, identifies the $13 million to cover
implementation for all of Alaska including interior Alaska. The
increase also enables a 5-year measurement cycle in the eastern United
States:
--production of annual reports on renewable biomass supplies and
carbon stocks at multiple spatial scales inclusive of ownership
categories;
--annualized forest products monitoring system with improved coverage
of secondary manufacturing industries using wood;
--enhanced remote sensing research and applications for immediate
operational improvement of land cover and land use monitoring;
--an improved National Woodland Owner Survey to determine the goals
and objectives of private forest land owners, including Timber
Management Organizations and Real Estate Investments Trusts;
and
--implementation of urban FIA in selected cities with State and local
partnership support.
Question. What will be the impacts of the non-FIA reduction to the
Forest and Rangeland Research be to capacity and output?
Answer. The decrease to non-FIA work will not prevent other
research projects from moving forward, but it will slow progress on
both new and existing projects. Research on hazardous reduction, a very
important component of healthy forest management tht is focused on
finding cost-effective ways to use biomass and promote healthy,
sustainable forests that are more resilient to catastrophic fire, will
be affected. The Forest Service will take steps to minimize the impact
of the proposed funding reduction on our existing staff. If reductions
to the workforce occur, it will be through not filling vacant
positions.
Question. What would the impact of the budget request be on the
Forest Service's focus on biomass uses and market development and
expansion for non-merchantable timber products?
Answer. In fiscal year 2016, we are requesting $32.3 million for
biomass-related projects. Approximately $10 million would go towards
grants to expand wood energy and wood products markets in order to
support active forest management on National Forest System lands. In
addition, we will continue to support the use of Statewide Wood Energy
Teams to facilitate State efforts to make use of small-diameter wood
generated from National Forest System and other forest lands with high
wildfire risk. These funds would leverage additional matching support
and bring more partners to the table in areas of the country with the
most promising opportunities to expand markets for both wood energy and
wood products.
Question. According to the Forest Service's cut and sold reports
for fiscal year 2014, stewardship contracts provided 30 percent of the
timber volume sold in 2014, up from 27.5 percent last year, and up from
less than 5 percent in 2004. In 2014 this authority was made permanent.
You told this committee that you would begin the Rulemaking process to
add Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts to the Small
Business Administration Set-Aside Program as soon as stewardship
contracting was reauthorized.
What is the status of that rulemaking?
Answer. The Forest Service has joined with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) to prepare a joint Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (ANPRM). The SBA published an ANPRM, in the Federal
Register on March 25, 2015 (80 FR 15697-99), to solicit public comments
on two main items:
--The possibility of including saw timber volume sold as part of a
stewardship timber or stewardship services contract in the
calculation of the timber sale share of small business;
--How timber sale appraisals should be performed for small business
set aside sales and associated costs and benefits to
stakeholders (i.e. should appraisals be to the nearest SBA mill
or remain to the nearest mill).
The actual 5-year re-computation process will take place during
October 2015 through March 2016, with the new small business market
share(s) effective October 1, 2015. Under the current schedule the SBA
rule should be completed before the 5-year re-computation of the SBA
Set-Aside Program.
Question. The retrofitted Coast Guard C130s are scheduled to begin
coming online late this year. It seems to me that this is an
opportunity to see if the Forest Service can effectively manage and
maintain a fleet of large air tankers.
Do you think it is wise for the Forest Service to purchase an air
tanker without first evaluating the cost and effectiveness of an in-
house fleet versus contracted planes?
Answer. The Forest Service has determined an in-house fleet as well
as a contracted fleet makes the most financial sense. Owning a fleet of
airtankers and contracting for aircrews, Integrated Logistics Support,
and maintenance (field and depot level) is cost effective in the long
run due to the ability to utilize the aircraft throughout the year for
missions in support of both agency fire and resource objectives. This
year-round operational model is not possible with the single purpose
airtanker offered by private industry. Additionally, the majority of
the overhead cost and additional personnel required to manage and
maintain the aviation assets would be transferred to a contractor,
providing the greatest flexibility to the agency.
Question. Do you know how many support staff it will take to
operate and maintain each C130H per year, and the annual cost of those
services?
Answer. Direct contract maintenance support of the aircraft during
Initial Operating Capability (IOC) will require a crew of 7 and a
possibility of a surge to 13 should there be 2 aircraft available at
the same time. This is estimated to cost $1.193 million in fiscal year
2015 and $1.73 million in fiscal year 2016. The flight crew contract
consists of one program manager and five crew members: two pilots, one
flight engineer and two loadmasters. The annual cost for this flight
crew contract is $1.71 million in fiscal year 2015 and $2.27 million in
fiscal year 2016. The U.S. Coast Guard will also provide operational,
training, engineering, maintenance, and logistics support through an
Interagency Agreement. USCG support is estimated to cost the Forest
Service $3.9 million in fiscal year 2015 and $2.3 million in fiscal
year 2016. The total cost for contracts and interagency support to
operate and maintain the first two MAFFS equipped HC-130H aircraft is
$6.8 million in fiscal year 2015 and $6.3 million in fiscal year 2016.
Forest Service government employees will provide contract and
operational oversight to one aircraft during fiscal year 2015 and
fiscal year 2016. Two full-time employees will support the aircraft in
fiscal year 2015 at a cost of $230,000. Another six employees will
support the HC-130H program on a part-time basis; approximately one-
third of each employee's overall time. The cost for these employees in
fiscal year 2015 is $197,000. The total cost in fiscal year 2015 for
Federal employee support to the HC-130H program (and one operational
aircraft) is $427,000. Government oversight will remain approximately
the same with one aircraft or with multiple aircraft.
Question. The administration has once again proposed doubling the
amount of funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
programs, despite of the fact that the agency either met or exceeded
its goals on only 2 of the 12 performance measures. I continue to be
concerned that this program is becoming simply another budget line item
to fund work that could otherwise be accomplished better through other
budget line items. There are many opportunities outside of CFLR to
expand management nationwide.
What assurances can you give me that current and future projects
selected for this program will specifically meet all of its criteria
and are not simply work that could be accomplished outside the program
umbrella?
Answer. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory
Committee evaluates project proposals and makes recommendations to the
Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to make selections. The committee
evaluates proposals based on how well the projects fulfill the purposes
of the authorizing legislation. Specifically, whether projects:
--encourage collaborative, science-based restoration; support
ecological, economic, and social sustainability;
--leverage local, national, and private resources; facilitate the
reduction of wildfire management costs; and
--demonstrate varied approaches to achieve ecological and watershed
health objectives, and; use forest restoration byproducts to
offset treatment costs.
Question. How has the CFLR program reduced unit costs, either for
acres treated or per unit of wood produced?
Answer. One example of a project finding efficiency through
collaboration and large landscape restoration is the Four Forest
Restoration Initiative (4FRI) in Arizona. 4FRI has issued 19 task
orders to date, with an average per acre payment to the government of
$41.15 per acre on 18 of those task orders. Task orders under a
previous 10-year stewardship contract, White Mountain, cost the
government an average of $500 per acre. Through conversations with
partners and the focus on a large landscape in the phase one contract--
in addition to the growth of markets in northern Arizona--the project
has helped create opportunities to generate net gains and increase
capacity for restoration work. Ultimately, these contracts will have a
positive impact on watershed function and resilience and hazardous
fuels reduction while creating economic activity in local communities.
Question. How have CFLR projects reduced litigation or expedited
project completion?
Answer. Several projects have seen large landscape decisions
approved without appeals or objections, and as a member of the
Uncompahgre Partnership in Colorado stated, ``there is no way a 17,000
acre decision would not have been appealed without collaboration.'' By
supporting project collaboration, the CFLRP program enables groups to
address larger landscapes. The Deschutes Skyline project is a part of a
25,000 acre NEPA decision, bolstered by the success of a thinning
project that was the first on the district to not be litigated in 13
years. Former litigants are now collaborators, acting as educators for
the treatments proposed and carried out by the Forest Service.
Question. Do you have data showing that CFLR project areas have
reduced NEPA costs and increased the speed with which NEPA analysis is
completed?
Answer. We are not able to compare the speed and cost of NEPA
between CFLR and non-CFLR projects because the average length of time
required to reach a decision on a NEPA process varies greatly depending
on many factors including: the extent of collaboration, size of
analysis area, and natural resource issues specific to that project.
Regardless of the program, we continue to look for opportunities to
increase the scale of our analyses because it has the potential to save
us more time by completing a single NEPA analysis as opposed to
multiple analyses.
Question. How many actual acres have been treated in CFLR project
areas compared with non-CFLR acres since 2010? Do you know if those
numbers represent increases or decreases based on the NFS unit's prior
performance?
Answer. The tables below show: (1) key performance measure
accomplishments for the CFLR projects from 2010-2014; and (2) key
performance measure accomplishments for the entirety of the National
Forest units that contain part of a CFLR landscape from 2010-2014.
Comparing these numbers provides a sense for what portion of
overall National Forest accomplishments came from activities on the
CFLRP landscape.
TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA
[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Fiscal Year
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 to
Fiscal Year
2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Forest Restoration Initiative:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 1,921 121 11,360 3,833 2,660 19,896
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 12,764 8,864 4,712 24,519 18,409 69,269
Green tons of biomass made available 382,357 220,977 275,483 728,557 92,747 1,700,121
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 48,546 5,587 9,032 8,082 25,178 96,425
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 51,126 28,816 28,798 57,229 37,214 203,183
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 5,202 2,546 2,302 3,892 530 14,472
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 0 35 9 19 62
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 15 0 2 0 34 50
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 59,745 99,751 10,167 48,570 86,043 304,276
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 69 47 51 128 92 387
Burney Hat Creek Basins:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 962 313 332 1,607
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 1,472 1,040 2,113 4,625
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 27,402 33 18,754 46,189
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 1,329 624 2,640 4,592
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 1,677 496 738 2,911
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 974 540 980 2,494
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 13 30 16 59
Colorado Front Range:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 0 1,047 1,100 1,564 1,199 4,910
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 1,091 5,370 2,181 5,758 5,414 19,814
Green tons of biomass made available 5,514 1,128 459 260 0 7,361
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 0 0 0 0 969 969
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 3,224 8,291 5,506 9,625 6,530 33,176
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 100 1,050 625 429 477 2,681
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 4 5 0 7 16
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 0 0 0 4 4
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 0 1,407 6,615 1,414 4,163 13,599
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 8 3 6 3 3 23
Aador Calaveras Cornerstone:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 1,348 303 1,429 3,079
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 2,340 2,340
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 121 2,711 0 2,832
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 558 1,957 927 3,441
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 163 171 47 381
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 4 2 1 7
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 676 1,032 53 1,761
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 0 12 0.4 12
Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 0 0 240 394 2,125 2,759
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 0 983 1,486 1,356 2,371 6,196
Green tons of biomass made available 8,817 29,458 18,515 2,274 4,825 63,888
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 0 66 30 0 4,071 4,167
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 18,828 5,440 7,654 11,570 10,453 53,945
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 0 973 1,422 1,140 2,085 5,620
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 0 3 2 0 5
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 1 16 9 7 13 45
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 0 975 2,524 5,057 10 8,566
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 3 8 8 2 24 45
Dinkey Project:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 28 535 33 56 2 654
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 43 1,052 977 1,578 368 4,017
Green tons of biomass made available 3,630 8,948 1,291 0 0 13,869
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 1,650 384 2,790 862 2,062 7,748
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 1,500 3,826 948 3,300 1,864 11,438
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 0 9 0 0 0 9
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 0 0 0 .......... 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 1 0 0 0 1
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 0 4,051 0 4,800 2,619 11,470
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 0 8 7 2 1 19
Grandfather Restoration Project:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 0 0 44 44
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 312 523 339 1,174
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 71 309 .......... 380
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 5,191 5,322 3,439 13,952
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 127 15 0 142
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 0 3 3 6
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 2,129 6 5,345 7,480
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 4 0 1 5
Kootenai Valley Rhode Island:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 76 657 143 876
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 238 484 561 1,283
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 2,745 585 10,646 13,976
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 0 0 262 262
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 707 723 2,414 3,844
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 413 409 543 1,365
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 1 0 1 2
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 3 2 6 10
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 0 0 2,572 2,572
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 10 3 21 34
Lakeview Stewardship:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 319 537 5,251 6,107
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 6,107 3,614 11,879 21,600
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 14 14
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 14,888 8,546 19,248 42,682
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 4,608 0 14,784 19,392
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 1,036 516 704 2,256
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 16 16
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 141 9 10 160
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 2,654 4,159 19,646 26,459
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 0 2 15 17
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and
Hazardous Fuels Reduction:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 0 148 269 417
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 0 614 127 741
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 187 3 .......... 190
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 261 0 .......... 261
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 51,181 85,440 86,914 223,535
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 150 0 439 589
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 7 0 .......... 7
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 3 0 0 3
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 86,851 120,276 99,954 307,081
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 3 10 16 29
Longleaf Pine in Florida:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 3,649 1,359 2,678 2,338 1,693 11,717
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 1,500 554 2,115 3,119 4,407 11,695
Green tons of biomass made available 0 0 105 1 0 105
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 8,830 15,578 40,134 3,907 4,320 72,769
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 4,285 18,985 12,628 25,401 37,817 99,116
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 0 0 80 0 0 80
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 16 16 16 .......... 48
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 0 0 0 0 0
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 1,300 42,592 12,114 3,015 0 59,021
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 0 13 24 5 29 71
Missouri Pine Oak:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 0 252 787 1,039
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 5,920 657 6,072 12,649
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 6,307 6,307
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 3,772 9,621 11,793 25,186
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 13,570 0 8,323 21,893
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 0 153 354 508
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 20,174 1,760 10,850 32,784
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 2 13 11 25
Northeast Washington Forest Vision:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 79 0 0 79
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 739 2,157 2,221 5,117
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 1,268 672 298 2,238
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 6,745 4,709 5,181 16,635
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 534 0 0 534
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 9 0 12 21
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 1,679 0 5,181 6,860
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 19 17 11 46
Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 39 251 268 558
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 466 2,177 1,691 4,334
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 3,336 10,022 9,758 23,116
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 14,820 15,033 3,296 33,149
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 2,089 3,328 1,503 6,920
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 15 21 37 73
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 34,058 56,887 48,313 139,257
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 3 18 3 23
Selway-Middle Fork:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 148 0 0 0 18 166
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 19 616 616 498 18 1,767
Green tons of biomass made available 0 938 1,217 15 860 3,030
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 1,755 16,700 13,389 23,917 665 56,426
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 317 3,404 1,094 0 25 4,840
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 2,597 3,404 4,110 3,595 1,116 14,821
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 8 27 24 6 66
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 4 32 19 9 63
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 0 0 13,166 1,860 750 15,776
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf)*........... 0 8 5 0.1 7 20
Shortleaf Bluestem Community:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 140 1,085 665 1,890
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 1,330 2,332 1,093 4,755
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 5,391 7,024 6,742 19,157
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 16,469 28,561 12,498 57,528
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 33,120 33,041 38,709 104,870
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 23 0 21 44
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 19 0 1 20
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 57,937 103,023 75,421 236,381
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 34 41 47 121
Southern Blues Restoration Coalition:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 1,044 10,017 5,039 16,100
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 13,013 6,509 13,031 32,553
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 3,544 22,251 20,483 46,278
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 8,247 8,268 5,788 22,302
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 0 0 72 72
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 14 0 11 25
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 9,832 4,932 923 15,687
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ .......... .......... 24 48 60 132
Southwest Crown:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 1,755 1,916 2,650 2,879 1,615 10,815
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 0 76 259 621 1,857 2,813
Green tons of biomass made available 131,870 6,441 728 95 5,315 144,449
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 1,089 2,352 641 2,047 1,207 7,336
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 4,141 1,877 1,917 1,847 3,331 13,113
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 0 2,960 5,447 1,596 242 10,245
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 11 0 25 23 58
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 14 52 7 28 102
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 0 11,201 7,598 7,054 2,270 28,123
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 23 13 0.8 1 16 53
Southwest Jemez Mountains on the Santa
Fe National Forest:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 890 649 861 720 106 3,226
Green tons of biomass made available 3,000 0 0 887 10,464 14,351
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 0 326 0 2,906 0 3,232
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 1,623 3,623 2,668 5,420 6,242 19,576
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 0 4 21 87 60 171
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 11 0 3 0 14
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 12 2 3 0 0 17
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 1,933 640 3,546 4,806 4,000 14,925
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 0.8 0 0 0.6 2 3
Tapash:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 600 371 0 1,197 631 2,799
Green tons of biomass made available 0 0 0 0 0 0
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 0 0 1,104 4 3,040 4,148
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 5,100 0 3,869 794 2,893 12,656
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 0 0 1,318 679 1,969 3,966
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 0 0 0 0 4 4
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 1 0 4 10 14
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 0 2,907 746 1,657 12,490 17,800
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 1 15 7 13 10 46
Uncompahgre Plateau:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) 401 559 295 0 147 1,402
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... 261 2,026 1,205 0 765 4,257
Green tons of biomass made available 0 0 0 0 0 0
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside 1,782 4,891 771 339 3,652 11,435
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the 556 2,871 723 678 336 5,164
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 610 448 222 392 745 2,418
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... 30 0 30 36 13 109
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced 0 1 2 15 0 18
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 2,943 3,739 8,202 7,438 2,000 24,322
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........ 3 6 3 5 3 20
Weiser Little Salmon Headwaters:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 1,053 1,232 737 3,022
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 2,409 948 2,697 6,054
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 8,559 10,640 35,360 54,559
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 6,675 16,531 16,042 39,248
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 7,480 3,706 2,529 13,714
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 2,169 1,778 2,365 6,312
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 33 37 30 100
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 37 24 23 84
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 22,872 18,146 15,534 56,552
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf)*........... .......... .......... 13 12 23 48
Zuni Mountains:
Forest Vegetation Established (acres) .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)... .......... .......... 0 3,279 3,763 7,042
Green tons of biomass made available .......... .......... 0 0 4,463 4,463
for bioenergy (green tons)..........
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside .......... .......... 0 0 .......... 0
the Wildland Urban Interface (acres)
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the .......... .......... 1,700 3,407 4,144 9,251
Wildland Urban Interface (acres)....
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
Treatments (acres)..................
Roads decommissioned (miles)......... .......... .......... 0 0 4 4
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced .......... .......... 0 0 0 0
(miles).............................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or .......... .......... 120 1,800 744 2,664
Enhanced (acres)....................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf)*........... .......... .......... 4 6 6 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Official Timber Volume Sold by National Forest comes from official PTSAR (Periodic Timber Sale Attainment
Reports) which provides volume in both hundred cubic feet (ccf)--converted here to million board feet (mmbf).
TOTAL CFLRP 5 YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Vegetation Established (acres)................ 67,957
Forest Vegetation Improved (acres)................... 214,406
Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy 2,126,922
(green tons)........................................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban 509,256
Interface (acres)...................................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the Wildland Urban 945,097
Interface (acres)...................................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Treatments (acres)... 73,605
Roads decommissioned (miles)......................... 530
Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles).......... 703
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres)..... 1,335,909
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\........................ 1,256
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Official Timber Volume Sold by National Forest comes from official
PTSAR (Periodic Timber Sale Attainment Reports) which provides volume
in both hundred cubic feet (ccf)--converted here to million board feet
(mmbf).
TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT AREAS
[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Accomplishments
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Forests With
CFLR Projects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino,
Kaibab, and Tonto National
Forests--Four Forest Restoration
Initiative:
Forest Vegetation Established 2,820 1,817 11,750 4,691 3,562 24,640
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 13,916 11,587 6,751 25,490 20,566 78,310
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 404,374 375,049 408,201 906,136 204,864 2,298,625
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 62,255 53,438 32,432 22,587 63,986 234,698
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 53,336 53,487 36,857 59,828 61,964 265,471
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 8,165 6,573 6,705 8,584 8,871 38,897
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 19 1 42 0 0 61
Stream Habitat Restored or 43 69 72 124 66 374
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 107,982 194,945 59,199 194,147 115,607 671,879
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 85 76 70 154 117 502
Arapaho-Roosevelt and Pike San
Isabel National Forests--Colorado
Front Range:
Forest Vegetation Established 4,048 3,516 2,925 3,636 2,992 17,118
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 2,996 8,040 5,584 7,145 6,808 30,573
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 62,756 33,409 22,345 23,943 20,780 163,233
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 5,279 4,446 6,521 2,366 3,220 21,833
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 21,009 17,840 14,881 16,761 14,091 84,582
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 4,914 8,148 7,466 8,113 12,003 40,644
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 12 51 29 0 0 91
Stream Habitat Restored or 13 20 28 24 41 125
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 4,705 25,744 32,474 37,519 36,564 137,006
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 28 23 26 20 29 127
Cibola National Forest--Zuni
Mountain:
Forest Vegetation Established 611 373 0 0 0 984
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 2,316 834 602 5,616 8,616 17,984
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 36,460 43,822 32,346 35,300 21,682 169,610
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 11,065 6,380 3,258 1,658 1,506 23,867
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 8,107 3,641 2,582 5,887 9,101 29,318
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 1,016 925 559 504 126 3,129
Treatments (acres)..............
Stream Habitat Restored or 0 2 1 1 1 5
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 21,878 20,075 17,520 18,924 28,719 107,116
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 7 12 12 13 11 56
Clearwater National Forest (Now
part of the Nez Perce Clearwater
National Forest)--Selway-Middle
Fork:
Forest Vegetation Established 4,310 3,454 2,730 693 0 11,187
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 4,056 2,844 2,177 2,083 0 11,160
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 24,128 28,398 27,283 19,737 0 99,546
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 7,134 12,283 8,771 19,970 0 48,158
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 2,718 1,722 1,671 811 0 6,922
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 19,041 1,143 4,810 2,095 0 27,090
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 28 35 24 0 0 87
Stream Habitat Restored or 88 68 42 0 0 198
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 7,000 12,825 11,141 0 0 30,966
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 23 36 21 32 0 113
Colville National Forest--Northeast
Washington Vision 2020:
Forest Vegetation Established 770 585 609 880 480 3,324
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 4,944 481 1,741 4,423 3,218 14,807
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 51,763 37,275 46,407 27,504 23,529 186,479
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 9,389 1,107 2,151 1,064 1,933 15,644
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 12,240 6,797 15,085 5,683 7,639 47,444
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 2,093 1,995 2,281 2,011 2,246 10,626
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 1 6 3 0 0 11
Stream Habitat Restored or 15 25 27 17 34 118
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 9,654 6,788 6,606 39,568 13,990 76,606
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 48 41 37 47 48 221
Deschutes National Forest--
Deschutes Collaborative Forest
Project:
Forest Vegetation Established 5,992 6,212 4,824 3,306 5,595 25,928
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 34,033 17,324 10,200 6,320 7,352 75,229
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 79,055 74,130 71,286 57,050 36,878 318,399
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 57,479 17,611 17,701 16,451 23,587 132,829
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 32,927 28,166 32,808 23,368 22,869 140,138
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 5,417 3,793 6,095 6,329 6,833 28,466
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 7 1 40 0 0 48
Stream Habitat Restored or 5 21 18 17 20 80
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 1,563 33,208 15,830 23,641 30,784 105,026
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 54 52 61 61 57 283
Eldorado and Stanislaus National
Forests--Amador Calaveras
Cornerstone:
Forest Vegetation Established 380 330 471 199 196 1,576
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 7,377 6,244 5,318 1,645 2,493 23,077
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 84,027 90,252 71,239 22,094 44,018 311,630
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 11,385 11,078 13,287 9,144 9,059 53,953
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 8,989 6,832 2,640 3,444 5,019 26,924
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 752 757 816 725 914 3,964
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 1 0 1 0 0 ...............
Stream Habitat Restored or 23 17 36 39 38 154
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 2,344 25,476 21,960 11,422 14,071 75,272
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 52 42 58 33 96 281
Flathead, Helena, and Lolo National
Forests--Southwest Crown of the
Continent:
Forest Vegetation Established 14,689 18,852 16,947 7,034 9,428 66,950
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 5,334 2,673 1,297 3,482 2,344 15,130
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 127,024 115,768 100,166 87,458 115,952 546,368
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 13,347 15,252 8,761 18,668 7,461 63,488
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 15,447 14,195 9,463 8,026 16,445 63,576
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 13,770 16,505 10,188 11,877 9,868 62,209
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 84 45 63 0 0 192
Stream Habitat Restored or 91 47 82 52 111 384
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 16,504 36,678 57,563 47,529 89,467 247,740
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 77 63 43 25 71 278
Fremont-Winema National Forest--
Lakeview Stewardship:
Forest Vegetation Established 947 1,238 1,536 1,511 6,233 11,465
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 18,966 7,785 18,850 10,083 23,743 79,428
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 119,078 62,829 45,046 51,636 35,806 314,394
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 43,398 22,700 49,415 17,674 37,709 170,897
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 8,409 6,535 10,890 34,007 21,977 81,818
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 2,697 1,792 2,555 2,247 2,759 12,051
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stream Habitat Restored or 152 88 144 21 28 434
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 14,499 21,017 32,969 30,877 32,687 132,048
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 58 42 68 36 60 264
Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison
National Forest--Uncompahgre
Plateau:
Forest Vegetation Established 707 669 2,500 355 1,873 6,104
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 316 2,270 1,733 215 789 5,324
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 18,070 18,342 16,887 17,389 15,868 86,556
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 1,877 6,184 2,870 3,839 6,287 21,057
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 2,013 4,444 1,397 1,707 532 10,093
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 5,225 6,686 1,759 1,304 2,249 17,223
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 30 149 156 0 0 335
Stream Habitat Restored or 9 35 25 28 27 124
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 5,528 36,647 45,772 15,228 33,223 136,398
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 10 13 25 23 30 101
Idaho Panhandle National Forests--
Kootenai Valley Resource
Initiative:
Forest Vegetation Established 897 1,342 1,461 1,499 1,141 6,340
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 9,846 4,848 3,566 3,300 4,327 25,887
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 69,904 66,441 70,776 66,898 62,407 336,425
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 7,620 6,636 4,414 3,892 2,473 25,035
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 3,479 3,609 4,157 3,983 4,132 19,359
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 3,075 3,600 3,038 2,330 3,251 15,293
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 26 14 9 0 0 49
Stream Habitat Restored or 22 13 10 6 38 88
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 10,888 30,038 21,494 9,766 30,073 102,259
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 33 24 45 40 44 186
Lassen National Forest--Burney Hat
Creek Basins:
Forest Vegetation Established 1,512 703 1,520 1,160 924 5,819
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 8,961 7,424 8,341 4,439 5,002 34,167
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 124,145 158,484 129,096 70,051 86,847 568,623
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 18,358 11,500 11,594 7,210 9,809 58,469
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 2,683 5,033 2,824 2,884 1,783 15,206
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 192 493 90 60 50 886
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 7 9 1 0 0 17
Stream Habitat Restored or 25 32 14 9 19 98
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 11,982 6,286 6,134 4,012 5,151 33,565
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 34 56 40 54 31 215
Malheur National Forest--Southern
Blues Restoration Coalition:
Forest Vegetation Established 4,767 4,588 4,219 6,135 4,251 23,959
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 15,097 3,977 4,979 13,628 7,416 45,097
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 22,361 19,238 32,587 29,744 33,231 137,161
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 26,298 7,714 12,205 32,471 32,606 111,293
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 17,246 18,247 13,894 12,975 8,940 71,302
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 410 203 43 322 364 1,341
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 29 3 0 0 0 32
Stream Habitat Restored or 23 29 33 16 32 133
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 33,173 31,314 27,176 29,220 31,776 152,659
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 39 29 34 55 70 227
Mark Twain National Forest--
Missouri Pine Oak:
Forest Vegetation Established 5,077 5,838 6,828 6,483 6,343 30,569
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 3,635 4,004 8,773 2,361 6,963 25,736
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 27,345 22,541 16,592 12,844 39,276 118,597
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 52,680 35,661 26,643 26,731 31,675 173,391
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 13,631 10,272 32,534 7,848 37,920 102,205
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 4,936 3,930 871 2,104 2,399 14,241
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 28 0 35 0 0 63
Stream Habitat Restored or 1 24 85 28 74 211
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 29,307 70,912 68,468 52,826 64,810 286,322
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 47 46 38 50 54 235
National Forests in Florida--
Accelerating Longlead Pine:
Forest Vegetation Established 10,465 4,016 5,044 5,305 3,404 28,234
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 2,553 1,202 2,381 3,852 5,292 15,280
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 1,577 2,213 1,203 1,323 956 7,271
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 75,960 77,558 58,206 46,620 49,010 307,354
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 171,762 82,542 70,996 126,105 151,932 603,337
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 341 394 496 504 427 2,162
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 39 30 47 0 0 116
Stream Habitat Restored or 33 27 33 860 56 1,009
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 142,274 172,003 302,847 218,666 181,883 1,017,673
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 22 32 42 32 55 183
National Forests in Mississippi--
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem
Restoration and Hazardous Fuels
Reduction:
Forest Vegetation Established 977 819 1,445 2,120 954 6,315
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 3,006 1,688 1,643 1,906 773 9,016
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 7,824 1,162 4,002 773 481 14,242
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 22,451 16,330 15,307 4,045 4,277 62,410
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 222,365 108,544 158,739 193,547 198,300 881,495
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 3,536 3,804 2,710 32 495 10,576
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 140 27 116 0 0 283
Stream Habitat Restored or 6 40 40 52 38 176
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 187,446 132,324 191,577 324,785 241,605 1,077,737
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 75 64 72 58 77 346
National Forests in North Carolina--
Grandfather Restoration Project:
Forest Vegetation Established 463 23,708 6,894 1,137 796 32,997
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 3,496 3,632 5,193 4,011 3,897 20,228
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 8,874 8,289 6,711 8,181 8,382 40,437
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 18,045 17,711 3,043 3,046 9,592 51,438
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 29,561 20,110 36,234 29,354 25,265 140,524
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 326 712 1,190 1,355 799 4,382
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 16 1 2 0 0 19
Stream Habitat Restored or 55 55 61 39 29 239
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 3,446 35,764 11,845 9,518 37,120 97,691
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 17 27 22 16 18 100
Nez Perce National Forest--Selway-
Middle Fork:
Forest Vegetation Established 2,691 3,280 2,323 2,831 3,023 14,148
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 1,263 1,088 1,129 879 2,769 7,128
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 20,872 23,841 23,593 15,680 55,745 139,732
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 2,237 13,355 13,826 22,424 10,112 61,954
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 2,297 5,048 4,576 180 7,683 19,784
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 5,690 6,098 8,623 7,673 6,946 35,030
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 79 35 44 0 0 159
Stream Habitat Restored or 53 73 53 95 78 352
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 7,000 16,035 20,740 15,202 10,911 69,888
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 15 16 18 12 56 117
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest--
Tapash:
Forest Vegetation Established 2,416 4,325 4,912 3,960 7,775 23,388
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 5,709 3,750 3,657 4,004 2,630 19,750
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 51,082 54,916 47,365 49,053 38,263 240,678
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 8,177 2,130 3,782 3,943 3,916 21,947
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 27,252 22,328 19,545 43,697 24,836 137,657
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 10,559 10,046 5,786 5,892 8,001 40,285
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 11 20 4 0 0 35
Stream Habitat Restored or 8 5 110 23 34 179
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 18,865 27,468 15,660 2,804 49,395 114,192
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 56 53 42 34 37 221
Ouachita National Forest--Shortleaf
Bluestem Community:
Forest Vegetation Established 10,601 8,119 4,850 7,022 4,175 34,766
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 9,332 7,216 7,673 5,449 9,267 38,937
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 8,369 13,217 15,694 13,415 13,838 64,532
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 74,721 63,193 50,449 55,274 24,683 268,320
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 75,592 46,371 69,978 70,081 89,053 351,075
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 430 290 374 400 536 2,030
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 0 0 56 0 0 56
Stream Habitat Restored or 30 165 64 42 40 341
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 122,827 145,791 132,701 210,270 152,321 763,910
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 95 100 89 77 85 446
Ozark St Francis National Forest--
Ozark Highlands:
Forest Vegetation Established 3,238 2,304 1,417 1,639 1,832 10,430
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 4,481 5,936 11,460 5,599 5,440 32,916
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 5,364 3,165 2,574 2,844 3,399 17,346
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 61,528 42,579 22,707 15,690 28,653 171,157
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 31,010 17,520 44,031 42,604 26,050 161,214
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 3,235 3,446 3,090 3,971 4,730 18,473
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 1 2 52 0 0 55
Stream Habitat Restored or 64 62 87 71 88 371
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 82,655 82,557 133,569 120,757 156,508 576,046
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 58 58 58 53 66 294
Payette National Forest--Weiser-
Little Salmon Headwaters:
Forest Vegetation Established 1,174 1,652 1,841 1,232 737 6,636
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 5,387 1,978 2,409 948 2,697 13,419
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 46,608 33,338 29,033 24,127 49,572 182,677
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 12,441 1,585 6,935 28,988 16,042 65,991
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 14,495 13,365 8,449 3,711 4,227 44,245
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 3,157 2,798 2,714 2,709 3,410 14,788
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 53 20 33 0 0 106
Stream Habitat Restored or 38 14 48 49 39 189
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 10,713 5,582 24,116 28,279 16,996 85,686
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 28 27 19 15 27 115
Santa Fe National Forest--Southwest
Jemez Mountains:
Forest Vegetation Established 109 552 157 2,359 795 3,972
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 1,260 1,061 1,745 1,619 1,098 6,783
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 64,765 59,548 55,496 54,161 50,040 284,010
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 22,723 3,469 1,761 16,279 3,175 47,407
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 8,540 7,760 4,379 6,777 10,166 37,622
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 436 298 306 171 337 1,548
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 0 11 0 0 0 11
Stream Habitat Restored or 20 19 18 12 19 87
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 7,869 6,355 11,431 6,090 7,290 39,035
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 15 14 13 12 12 67
Sierra National Forest--Dinkey
Project:
Forest Vegetation Established 267 836 138 229 170 1,640
(acres).........................
Forest Vegetation Improved 2,583 3,075 2,093 2,789 1,478 12,018
(acres).........................
Green tons of biomass made 16,073 21,914 11,842 11,445 8,247 69,521
available for bioenergy (green
tons)...........................
Hazardous Fuels Treatments 5,135 1,703 3,645 3,201 5,265 18,949
Outside the Wildland Urban
Interface (acres)...............
Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 4,514 4,951 2,111 5,442 2,293 19,311
the Wildland Urban Interface
(acres).........................
Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 109 75 54 45 74 357
Treatments (acres)..............
Roads decommissioned (miles)..... 0 1 0 0 0 1
Stream Habitat Restored or 5 19 16 15 11 66
Enhanced (miles)................
Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 3,191 10,087 6,822 7,719 5,762 33,581
Enhanced (acres)................
Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) \1\.... 15 22 23 20 25 106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Official Timber Volume Sold by National Forest comes from official PTSAR (Periodic Timber Sale Attainment
Reports) which provides volume in both hundred cubic feet (ccf)--converted here to million board feet (mmbf).
Question. How much in non-CFLR FS funds are used to meet matching
requirements under CFLR? Please provide a breakdown by CFLR project.
Answer. The table below provides a list of CFLRP expenditures used
to meet the matching requirement under CFLRP projects.
cflrp expenditures and forest service matching funds
(Forest Service matching funds are italicized)
The CFLR Fund (expenditures shown below) is to be used to pay up to
50 percent of the cost of carrying out and monitoring ecological
restoration treatments on National Forest System land. The remainder of
project implementation and monitoring costs are provided by Forest
Service and partner match funding. Forest Service matching funds listed
below include appropriated, permanent, and trust funds, as well as
restoration treatments funded through timber value within a stewardship
contract. It also includes unobligated balances that may be available
in a given year to support the Chief's priorities and Strategic Plan.
Forest Service match includes investments that would go to these
landscapes even without the CFLR program, to support these high
priority restoration efforts. Initial investments supported the
projects as partner match and revenue from woody byproducts increase
over time with implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014
Project Name CFLRP & FS CFLRP & FS CFLRP & FS CFLRP & FS CFLRP & FS
Match Match Match Match Match
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Forest Restoration Initiative.................. $985,943 $1,377,483 $2,010,741 $3,890,185 $3,718,311
25,602,100 6,755,235 14,395,465 17,483,952 17,896,968
Accelerating Longleaf Pine.......................... 1,000,313 1,164,031 1,408,354 979,898 984,542
1,579,787 1,464,896 1,599,014 1,687,376 2,491,322
Amador-Calaveras Cornerstone........................ 0 0 658,373 620,770 930,857
0 0 716,275 618,295 5,982,159
Burney-Hat Creek Basins............................. 0 0 512,691 200,864 934,763
0 0 0 777,316 563,347
Colorado Front Range................................ 930,458 3,578,889 2,945,211 2,494,072 1,937,324
1,100,763 1,436,804 1,968,824 2,902,453 4,412,522
Deschutes Collaborative Forest...................... 498,402 660,492 621,311 443,468 1,100,337
2,506,679 627,886 1,251,485 1,297,611 1,863,306
Dinkey Landscape Restoration........................ 1,107,000 1,170,965 1,408,791 900,819 1,095,987
305,919 688,878 820,427 1,631,206 1,566,590
Grandfather Restoration............................. 0 0 322,819 478,763 409,100
0 0 185,878 2,224,737 320,009
Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative................. 0 0 174,911 176,479 597,381
0 0 352,801 630,107 1,511,209
Lakeview Stewardship................................ 0 0 2,088,646 2,037,204 2,707,036
0 0 3,347,513 5,321,117 4,075,996
Longleaf Pine \1\................................... .......... .......... .......... 1,909,931 1,954,859
0 0 4,193,690 1,646,194 3,333,200
Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration............. 0 0 534,966 531,335 786,272
0 0 295,308 1,434,590 1,066,617
Northeast Washington \1\ Forest Vision 2020......... 0 0 0 1,416,636 1,524,908
0 0 1,523,557 1,783,510 1,503,150
Ozark Highlands \1\ Ecosystem Restoration........... 0 0 0 1,371,740 1,349,323
0 0 425,389 1,822,965 2,384,261
Selway-Middle Fork.................................. 998,125 3,030,467 2,755,991 2,305,822 2,270,924
352,145 1,595,149 1,579,612 2,708,049 2,653,263
Shortleaf-Bluestem.................................. 0 0 316,319 1,739,957 1,382,163
0 0 642,974 2,795,554 2,718,882
Southern Blues Restoration Coalition................ 0 0 1,935,470 1,762,834 1,865,750
0 0 1,595,247 4,205,990 3,069,395
Southwest Jemez Mountains........................... 341,414 976,477 1,256,857 1,997,544 1,948,378
1,143,000 1,417,600 2,551,544 2,576,738 2,643,191
Southwest Crown of the Continent.................... 1,006,295 3,125,410 3,215,025 2,647,057 2,277,790
1,833,459 2,720,673 2,376,974 3,653,125 2,486,289
Tapash.............................................. 1,346,196 803,182 881,714 1,454,042 1,710,488
1,264,305 324,716 860,034 204,258 865,364
Uncompahgre Plateau................................. 438,178 863,892 733,237 504,996 741,551
224,500 1,440,198 998,432 1,461,162 1,970,401
Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters..................... 0 0 2,170,446 2,728,164 2,217,072
0 0 4,058,114 4,505,261 10,442,104
Zuni Mountain....................................... 0 0 329,311 559,502 358,020
0 0 402,113 770,191 8,665,053
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total \1\..................................... 7,546,431 16,751,288 26,281,184 33,152,082 32,865,811
===========================================================
FS Total...................................... 35,912,657 18,472,035 47,099,673 64,141,776 85,743,775
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: 10 projects were added to the CFLRP program in fiscal year 2012 and three more were added in fiscal
year 2013. CFLN totals include only expenditures; they do not capture prior year CFLN funds which remain
available. CFLN funds provide up to 50 percent of the project funding, supplemented by the matching funds,
over the 10-year project lifetimes.
Question. In an answer to a question for the record from Energy and
Natural Resources hearing in July of last year you stated that the
Forest Service has identified approximately 11.3 million acres for
highest priority treatment. You went on to say that these acres are at
a high or very high risk and that treating these acres would greatly
reduce the negative consequences of potential wildfires.
Where are these acres located?
Answer. The 11.3 million acres is an estimate based on a national
scale analysis of fire potential that is regularly updated (annually or
biennially) to incorporate landscape changes. These estimates reflect
acres that are at high and very high risk of wildfire, are near human
development or in high value municipal watersheds, not in wilderness or
roadless areas, and in fire regime groups I, II, or III. The numbers
are constantly changing, as wildfires, land management, and development
occur. Due to this, the analysis only readily generates data at the
Regional level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority
Forest Service Region Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Northern Region.......................................... 1,443,000
2 Rocky Mountain Region.................................... 679,000
3 Southwestern Region...................................... 1,704,000
4 Intermountain Region..................................... 764,000
5 Pacific Southwest Region................................. 3,698,000
6 Pacific Northwest Region................................. 1,884,000
8 Southern Region.......................................... 999,000
9 Eastern Region........................................... 137,000
------------
Total Acres............................................ 11,308,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many of these acres do you plan to treat in fiscal
year 2015, and how many for fiscal year 2016 under this proposed
budget?
Answer. The Forest Service expects to treat fuels on 2.145 million
acres in 2015 and also in 2016. Much of this work will take place in
the areas as identified above. Fuels work will also take place in areas
that are high priority for integrated restoration objectives, or in
areas where maintenance work is needed to protect previous landscape
management investments (for example, maintenance burning in the
Southeast). In addition, some areas require more than one treatment to
effectively reduce risk or achieve restoration objectives.
Question. How are you tracking the Forest Service's progress on
treating these 11.3 million acres? Is there a performance measure in
this budget proposal?
Answer. Treated acres are tracked within an enterprise system,
including their mapped locations. We are piloting a new performance
measure for our draft Strategic Plan that better tracks risk reduced on
National Forest System lands.
Alaska doesn't compete well for hazardous fuels funds, but that
doesn't mean our need isn't significant. I am particularly concerned
about this in the wake of the Funny River Fire. As you know, roughly
243 square miles burned in the fire, fueled largely by spruce bark
beetle kills. We were fortunate that fuels breaks worked and helped
keep the fire from being even more destructive. According to your
statistics, Alaska received just $785,000 in fiscal year 2014 and is on
track to receive about the same amount for fiscal year 2015.
Question. Is this sufficient to meet the need in Alaska?
Answer. Alaska received an additional $200,000 in fiscal year 2015
for the Chugach National Forest's All Hands work. We recognize the
importance and impact of the Fuels Program in Alaska. Due to
constrained budgets, we must prioritize areas with more frequent fires
and greater population densities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. How important is the Disaster Cap Adjustment proposal to
the administration's overall vision for reducing the threat of
wildfires?
Answer. The Disaster Cap Adjustment proposal is very important to
the administration's proposal for a new wildfire funding mechanism. The
proposal would allow us to continue to manage most wildland fires as we
currently do, but would treat those fires that are most destructive and
most costly outside of our discretionary budget. Approximately 1
percent of fires result in about 30 percent of suppression costs, and
this new wildfire funding mechanism would allow those fires to be
considered natural disasters. The cost of fire management has grown
from 13 percent of the agency's budget in the 1990s to over 50 percent
in 2014. With constrained budgets, this has meant other programs have
suffered diminished budgets.
There is no set of solutions that will definitively result in
decreasing wildfire management costs because of factors outside of our
control, such as expansion of the wildland urban interface, and climate
change. Taking these most expensive fires out of our constrained,
discretionary budget by changing the mechanism to fund wildfire
suppression will alleviate the need to continue cutting budgets to non-
fire programs and allow us to invest further in the restoration and
active management programs that will improve the health and resilience
of forests and grasslands, including making them more resistant to
wildland fire.
I cannot overstate how much the Disaster Cap Adjustment proposal
for fire would alleviate the problems created by fire transfer. It
would eliminate the need to transfer funds from hazardous fuels
reduction efforts, and other important natural resource management
programs to cover firefighting costs. When funding is transferred from
other programs to support fire suppression operations, these programs
are unable to accomplish priority work and achieve the overall mission
of the agency. This priority work often was intended to mitigate
wildland fire hazards in future years. The ability of programs to
achieve established targets is impacted and projects are often put on
hold or cancelled. Programs that help prevent damaging fires in the
future, like Hazardous Fuels reduction, Integrated Resource
Restoration, and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
are critically important to maintain forest and rangeland health and
reduce the threat of wildfires.
Question. What are the management impacts that the Forest Service
has experienced because of fire borrowing in previous years?
Answer. In years when the base appropriation for suppression is
insufficient to cover the cost of fighting wildland fire, the agency
has the authority to transfer funds from non-fire activities to
suppression. These non-fire activities are often those that improve the
health and resilience of our forested landscapes and thus mitigate the
potential for fire in future years. These fire transfers, while they
are generally reimbursed in subsequent appropriations, are highly
disruptive to agency operations and hinder the Forest Service's
capacity to effectively maintain and restore the Nation's forests and
grasslands. The agency work must come to a halt in order to transfer
funds and, although we may be able to do the work the following year
with the reimbursed funds, there are costs related to the delay, the
window for conducting that work may pass and other projects may become
a priority, and we fall further behind as we can never recapture the
lost season of work.
Question. Given that the Forest Service will always fight forest
fires, what will happen to the rest of the Forest Service budget if
Congress fails to approve the disaster cap and fails to end
sequestration?
Answer. The increasing cost of fighting wildland fire has a
negative and lasting impact on the Forest Service's non-fire, mission-
critical activities. We anticipate that without the budget cap
adjustment, and with continued sequestration, we could face
significantly negative funding impacts to other Forest Service mission
focus areas thereby reducing our ability to achieve programmatic
objectives because of the need to transfer funds from hazardous fuels
reduction and other important natural resource management programs to
cover firefighting costs.
Question. Are the Forest Service's attorneys working with the
Valles Caldera Trust to ensure that long-term agreements and contracts
are not jeopardized by the management transfer to the National Park
Service?
Answer. The Forest Service is working closely with the National
Park Service and the Valles Caldera Trust to ensure that the transfer
of long-term agreements and contracts are not jeopardized by the
management transfer to the National Park Service.
Question. How will the Forest Service continue to manage the
Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Restoration Project, now that a
portion of the original project area and scope are not National Forest
System lands?
Answer. In fiscal year 2015, the Forest Service is transferring
funds to the National Park Service for restoration activities on the
Valles Caldera National Preserve lands under the existing contract. The
Santa Fe National Forest is committed to continuing to collaborate with
the National Park Service to achieve the Southwest Jemez Mountains
restoration goals.
Question. The Forest Service has used the Southwest Ecological
Restoration Institute (SWERI) to assist in collecting data, researching
solutions to problems, consulting on and assessing planned decisions,
and to disseminate their findings. Despite the benefits to the Forest
Service, funding for the Institute has stagnated over the last few
years at $1.5 million. Is this level of funding adequate for SWERI's
work?
Answer. The current funding amount is consistent with the levels
set by Congress when the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire
Prevention Act (which authorized funding to these Institutes) was
passed. The amounts provided to each Institute are meant to align with
their capacity and focus areas. They are valuable partners and play a
critical role in the transfer of current scientific information
regarding management of fire-adapted ecosystems in the interior West.
The Forest Service has also provided additional funding to the
Institutes through other partnerships and competitive processes. The
Forest Service meets regularly with representatives from each Institute
to discuss funding, upcoming work plans, and outyear planning. Our
Southwest Region develops annual work plans for each Institute in
consultation with the Department of the Interior and State Foresters.
Question. Within SWERI, both the New Mexico Forest and Watershed
Restoration Institute and the Colorado program receive substantially
less each year than Arizona, despite the fact that the three programs
submit a shared list of projects to the Forest Service. It is my
understanding that the institutes produce an annual work plan matching
their $1.5 million authorization delivered to the Forest Service before
their funding is allocated. Is the funding for the three individual
institutes based on their annual submissions of projects, or is it just
based on historic levels and an archaic formula?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 allocation was based on the
distribution in the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Bill, the last year
in which allocations were specified by Congress: Northern Arizona
University $1,200,000 (80 percent); Colorado State University $150,000
(10 percent); and New Mexico Highlands University $150,000 (10
percent).
Question. What will the Forest Service do to provide additional
financial resources for the New Mexico and Colorado programs that are a
part of SWERI?
Answer. Over the years, the Forest Service has provided additional
funding to the Institutes through other partnerships and competitive
processes. The Forest Service meets regularly with representatives from
each Institute to discuss funding, upcoming work plans, and outyear
planning. Our Southwest Region develops annual work plans for each
Institute in consultation with the Department of the Interior and State
Foresters. We will continue to meet and engage in discussions about
funding levels appropriate for each Institute's outyear work plans.
Question. The President's budget calls for an increase of $20
million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.
What are the plans for the additional funding--will new projects be
started, or is the increase to provide higher levels of funding to the
existing projects?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget would permit the
investment in up to 10 new CFLRP projects. New CFLRP projects would be
submitted by Forest Service Regions and reviewed by an Advisory
Committee. As specified in the law, the Advisory Committee will then
submit recommendations for funding projects to the Secretary of
Agriculture, who will make a final decision regarding project
selection.
Question. In fiscal year 2014, the Forest Service was provided with
$2 million for a Restoration Partnerships program to improve relations
with utilities and increase non-Federal funding for fuels treatments.
Why did the Forest Service not request specific funding for this
program in fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016, and what is the Forest
Service doing to continue this type of activity without specific
funding?
Answer. This budget item was not requested for fiscal year 2015 or
fiscal year 2016 because similar activities will be carried out through
partnerships under the proposed Integrated Resource Restoration budget
line item.
Question. How is the Forest Service working with utilities to
ensure that fires like the 2011 Las Conchas Fire in New Mexico, started
by a downed power line, will not happen again?
Answer. Our Lands staff has been substantially engaged in this
issue. We have worked closely with Edison Electric and our partner
Federal land management agencies to draft revisions to a national MOU
to facilitate cooperation and coordination with utilities regarding
vegetation management on Federal lands, both inside and outside of
their rights of ways. The parties have also engaged with the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to understand how State
entities can be more involved in vegetation management planning and
control. We also meet regularly with utilities to identify any specific
instances where they have been unable to complete required vegetation
work, and send representatives to Western Governors Association and
Western Utilities Group meetings ( scheduled for May 2015) to discuss
any adjustments to regulations, policies, or practices that facilitate
cooperation in maintaining rights of way.
Question. In the case of the Las Conchas Fire, we have a situation
where the Forest Service--an agency of the USDA--is suing a rural co-
op, which is supported by USDA loan authority, over the downed power
line that reportedly led to the fire. What is the Forest Service doing
to avoid these fire starts--and subsequent expensive litigation--in the
future?
Answer. We are developing a day-long workshop for agency leadership
on energy development on National Forest System lands. This workshop
will provide information on current and anticipated energy development
project proposals and clarify the agency's role, responsibilities, and
requirements to support energy demands in rural communities.
Question. In response to the endangered species listing of the New
Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse in June 2014, the Forest Service has since
fenced off riparian areas to protect the mouse. This has upset local
ranchers who have grazed in some of these areas for generations. What
is the Forest Service doing to ensure ranchers are informed and have
reasonable access?
Answer. The Forest Service is actively working with affected
grazing permittees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other
stakeholders on developing approaches to ensure the protection and
recovery of the endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse while
accommodating continued grazing. Affected permittees have been informed
of the opportunity to participate in the consultation process with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service through applicant status, as well as the
opportunity to participate in any NEPA processes, and multiple
opportunities for face-to-face discussions on these issues.
In fiscal year 2014, the listing of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse required the Forest Service to take immediate measures to protect
occupied habitat which was not already within riparian enclosures.
These enclosures allowed continued access to water for cattle and did
not result in any reductions in permitted grazing numbers or change in
permitted season of use. Of the 22 allotments with proposed critical
habitat in New Mexico and Arizona, only two allotments required
installation of temporary fencing, 13 already had permanent fencing in
place, and the remaining allotments were either vacant, lacked occupied
habitat, or were not scheduled for grazing after the listing. A
relatively small percent of each allotment is within proposed critical
habitat.
The final determination of any further protective measures or
change in grazing management will depend upon pending consultation,
final designation of critical habitat, and any required NEPA analysis.
Further details are available on the Southwestern Regions Web site at
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/home/?cid=stelprd3809040.
Question. Water is a big concern for New Mexicans and for
Westerners generally. The severe drought in the Southwest weighs
heavily on the shoulders of land and water managers and users in the
region. What role does the Land and Water Conservation Fund play in
helping to protect watersheds throughout the National Forest System?
Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund plays an important
role in protecting intact, healthy watersheds, as well as lands in
compromised watersheds that are good candidates for restoration to
improve water quality and quantity. New Mexico has a great example--the
Miranda Canyon acquisition recently completed on the Carson National
Forest. Just over 5,000 acres of protected lands in the headwaters of
the Rio Grande River as well as the entire Arroyo Miranda watershed
were acquired, to protect watersheds throughout the National Forest
System and to provide drinking water to local communities.
Question. In fiscal year 2014, the Forest Service proposed an
increase of $12 million for Research and Development, but in both the
fiscal year 2015 budget and now the fiscal year 2016 budget, there is a
$17 million reduction. What will be the impacts of this overall
reduction--and why this abrupt switch from proposed increases to
decreases?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget the Forest Service
proposes $291,982,000 for Research and Development (R&D), with
$83,000,000 for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program and
$208,510,000 for the other portions of R&D. This is an increase of
$13,000,000 for FIA and a decrease of $17,000,000 for other R&D
programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2016
Fiscal Year 2015 President's Change
Enacted Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-FIA programs.......................................... $226,000,000 $208,510,000 -$17,018,000
FIA programs.............................................. 70,000,000 83,000,000 +13,000,000
R&D Total................................................. 296,000,000 291,982,000 -4,018,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Nation's ``Forest Census'', FIA provides information on
forest health today and how forests are likely to appear 10 to 50 years
from now. FIA is foundational to restoration efforts on National Forest
System lands as well as private forestland. The additional $13,000,000
will provide for the first time inclusion of interior Alaska to the FIA
program and improved measurements and research capacity, including the
improved estimation of forest carbon inventory, land cover and timber
products output.
The $17 million proposed decrease to the non-FIA research portfolio
will result in a loss of capacity to the non-FIA research programs.
These proposed changes reflect the difficult choices made to support
the priority of forest restoration work while providing for growing
fire suppression costs and meeting deficit reduction goals.
Question. What will be the impacts of the proposed Research and
Development budget cut on research into cost-effective biomass uses
that could result in economic benefits, such as the nanotechnology work
occurring at the Forest Products Laboratory?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget would fund
continued research into cost-effective biomass uses; however, some
research may need to be conducted at a slower pace.
Question. How does the Forest Service intend to maintain a focus on
market development for biomass with this proposed cut in Research and
Development?
Answer. Market expansion and development for high value, high
volume biomass uses from low value wood would be funded by the Wildland
Fire Management account. Specifically, hazardous fuels funds would be
made available for market development through grants to States and
funds for the Forest Products Marketing Unit (FPMU) at the Forest
Products Laboratory.
Question. Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness is slated for a $2.3
million increase in the fiscal year 2016 budget request. However,
within the program, Recreation management is up $3.7 million, Special
Use Authorization administration is up $2.3 million, and Wilderness/
Wild & Scenic River management is cut by $2.9 million. Why does
Recreation need more vs. Wilderness in fiscal year 2016?
Answer. In fiscal year 2016, we propose to strengthen and enhance
the public's connection with the outdoors through privately provided
services, expanding citizen stewardship through partners and volunteer
opportunities, and enhancing the quality and delivery of information to
the public.
In fiscal year 2016, an increase in funds for Recreation Operations
funds will support: (1) further engagement of youth, veterans, and
underserved populations, via our partnerships through the 21st Century
Conservation Service Corps (21CSC); and (2) delivery of accurate, real-
time data on recreation opportunities to enable more efficient, mobile
and consistent data management for use by the public as well as
vendors.
The decrease in funding for Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers
program reflects both a reduction in funding associated with the
completion of the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and our
celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. The budget
proposes a shift in funds towards special use administration, 21CSC,
and expanding our digital infrastructure by supporting a public-facing
web portal for permit requests. These investments will support the more
than 5,000 outfitters and guides whose livelihoods depend on our public
lands and waters, including many that operate in and around Wilderness
and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) adopted the Land
Between the Lakes (LBL) Land and Resource Management Plan or the ``Area
Plan.'' This plan includes information pertaining to the land
allocations (i.e. forest, open lands, recreation and environmental
education), and strategies for supporting these designations, and other
criteria to be used to maintain the Land Between the Lakes National
Recreation Area. After 10 years executing the Area Plan, visitors,
residents, and others have noticed a recent uptick in logging and
burning by the USFS at LBL, meanwhile other needed infrastructure and
maintenance projects continue to go unaddressed by the USFS. These
misplaced priorities have caused much concern among hunters, horsemen,
hikers, residents, preservationists, and others that visit the park. It
is my understanding that these constituents, as well as locally elected
officials, have called on your agency to provide all management plans
and financial documents relating to the Area Plan, and for the USFS to
halt any logging and burning until this information is received and
reviewed by the community, so that they may engage in a transparent and
public dialogue with your agency.
Has your agency provided this information to the community to date
and, if not, when does it intend to do so?
Answer. The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area (LBL)
is engaging the public in conversations to address these concerns. The
first public meeting was held on April 28, 2015. Lyon County Judge-
Executive Wade White requested and was sent information regarding
public engagement in the development of the LBL Area Plan. The unit has
also shared information on budget allocations for fiscal years 2013
through 2015.
Question. Do you intend to suspend logging and burning at LBL until
you address the community's concerns regarding this matter?
Answer. The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area
Supervisor has committed to:
--delaying offering additional timber sales until the public could be
engaged in a conversation about land management;
--addressing visual concerns on existing timber sales brought up by
the public from the Trace Scenic Highway (existing timber sales
will continue to operate per contract obligations), and
--starting a conversation with the public about land management.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
With that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]