[Senate Hearing 116-419]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (Chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Daines, Udall, and Merkley.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee
will come to order.
Today we are reviewing the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal
for the Forest Service. I am pleased to welcome Chief Vicki
Christiansen to testify before us today. I am also welcoming
John Rapp who serves as the Director of the Office of Strategic
Planning, Budget, and Accountability at the Forest Service,
accompanying the Chief. Thank you both for being with us here
today.
The budget request for Forest Service for fiscal year 2020
is $5.14 billion. This request is $947 million less than the
enacted level, not including the $1.95 billion proposed to be
made available by the wildfire budget cap adjustment. Including
the wildfire cap adjustment brings the overall Forest Service
total to $7.09 billion.
Fiscal year 2020 marks the first year of availability for
the wildfire cap adjustment that was created by the fiscal year
2018 Omni. The cap adjustment will allow the Forest Service to
address fire suppression needs without disrupting programmatic
activities.
I am pleased that we have this mechanism available,
finally, to stop the fire borrowing and the repayment cycle, as
well as to stop the accompanying lack of budget certainty and
discipline.
The creation of the wildfire cap adjustment is about more
than just adequately funding wildfire suppression. It is about
making sure the Forest Service can deliver on its multiple-use
mission.
Now that we have the ability to fund wildfire without fire
borrowing, it is time for us to focus on working with the
Service to modernize and improve your budget structure.
Securing a cap adjustment was the first phase in increasing
transparency and accountability for your budgeting practices,
and the Forest Service took another important step by proposing
a budget restructure in the request.
I will discuss this further in my questions, but I want to
thank you, Chief and Mr. Rapp, for your willingness to work in
a bipartisan and a bicameral way to improve the Service's
ability to deliver results on the ground.
The request places a heavy emphasis on Secretary Perdue's
Shared Stewardship Initiative. This approach recognizes that we
can be better stewards of our natural resources if States,
local governments, and stakeholders work together towards
common goals. I do hope the Shared Stewardship Initiative will
really excel in improving wildfire resiliency in and around the
wildland urban interface.
Congress has routinely invested hundreds of millions of
dollars annually in hazardous fuels reduction activities. I
think we have some room for improvement here.
I am pleased the Forest Service recognizes the importance
of investing in recreation funding, and as you know, Chief,
many of our communities in Alaska rely on the recreation
industry for economic diversity, particularly in the southeast
region.
I am always disappointed to see subsistence activities cut
in the budget request, and I want to go on record with my
strong support for those activities.
The Tongass National Forest, our largest national forest,
unique in character from any other, is a rainforest made up of
32 island communities. To address our unique characteristics
and the challenges they present to the people who live and work
there, we have been working with you and the State of Alaska on
a Tongass-specific Roadless Rule.
I want to take this opportunity to reiterate yet again to
you that every elected official representing Southeast Alaska
supports an exemption. From the Governor, to the State
legislators, to the delegation here in Congress, this has never
been a partisan issue for us. Alaskans know best what it takes
to meet our needs, and we need relief from the Roadless Rule as
it currently stands. Without relief, our communities will
continue to struggle to grow jobs and a sustainable economy
that they desperately, desperately need.
As you continue to work with us on making the Tongass a
working forest again, I do hope that you will use it as an
opportunity to put the model of shared stewardship to work.
Thank you for being here today with us, Chief. I look
forward to your testimony. Again thank you for your willingness
to serve.
And with that, I turn to my colleague, Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, Chief
Christiansen, welcome. Also glad to have you before the
subcommittee for the first time. We did not have that
opportunity last year because we moved quickly to markup, but
it is great to have you here today.
By moving quickly, Chairman Murkowski and I were able to
bring the Interior bill to the Senate floor for the first time,
and that is what happens when we come together. And I am
hopeful we will do that the same this year.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, yes.
Senator Udall. We are committed to doing that.
I would like to commend you for taking strong public
actions in response to the reports of sexual harassment and
discrimination within the ranks of the Forest Service. We know
there is more work to be done to change the culture and ensure
a safe workplace for all staff. We are here to give you the
tools and resources you need to continue that effort.
I share my Chairman's concerns about the wholly
insufficient budget proposal the administration has saddled you
with and sent you here to defend.
Despite all we know about a changing climate and
degradation of our public lands, despite the tools we gave you
in the Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest Management
Activities Act that was part of our fiscal year 2018 Omnibus,
and despite the additional authorities provided in the 2018
Farm Bill, this proposed budget fails to make the investments
needed to improve the conditions of our forests and watersheds
or prevent pest disease and fire causing widespread havoc
across the landscape.
What makes this year's request particularly troubling is
that fiscal year 2020 is the first fiscal year that the Forest
Service is able to utilize the fire cap adjustment. This cap
adjustment allows the Forest Service to budget for a set amount
of fire suppression funding, and if the fire season is a bad
one, as many have been lately, additional funding outside the
discretionary budget caps becomes available. This means that we
are finally putting a stop to fire borrowing, which siphons
dollars that ought to be spent on their intended purposes.
Access to the cap adjustment saves $654 million we
appropriated for fire suppression in fiscal year 2019 that we
can now use for other needs. While the Forest Service was not
assured any of these discretionary savings from the fire cap,
it was my hope that the administration would use a portion to
reinvest in fire prevention and forest restoration so that we
get ahead of the cycle of catastrophic fires that will only
burn faster and hotter as climate conditions continue to
change.
So what did the administration do? They proposed a
reduction of $948 million for the Forest Service, a 16 percent
cut. The budget reduces or eliminates grants for States' forest
action plans, fire assistance in urban forestry, volunteer fire
department assistance, and community forest conservation. It
recommends $45 million less for research, eliminating the
Federal legacy in collaborative force landscape restoration
programs, and no funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. These programs all work together to safeguard our
forests.
I am frustrated, frankly. I have seen firsthand what
happens when wildfires tear through a community. In my home
State, the Las Conchas and the Whitewater-Baldy fires scorched
more than 300,000 acres, and this is happening all across the
United States, with 8.7 million acres consumed by fire in 2018.
Both 2017 and 2015 saw over 10 million acres burned. Sadly,
this is the new normal.
We here in Congress worked for years to resolve fire
borrowing to free up discretionary spending for restoration,
and now the administration wants to further gut the Forest
Service budget.
Let us think about that for a moment. At a time when
wildfires are burning record levels of acreage, the Forest
Service is cutting back on programs that help prevent fires.
The only significant increase in the budget proposal is $15
million for hazardous fuels reduction projects. We all agree
that removing hazardous fuels is an effective fire prevention
measure, but to provide that extra $15 million for hazardous
fuels, the budget proposes to cut $15 million from State fire
assistance.
So the question is, What level of increased protection are
we getting for $15 million more in hazardous fuels projects?
Does it really reduce fire risk by such a factor that we can
cut State fire grants by $15 million, volunteer fire assistance
by $6 million, and cross-boundary forest health projects by $12
million? Even worse, the budget estimate for the number of
acres that can be treated with $450 million remains the same as
fiscal year 2019 estimate of 3.4 million acres, when the budget
proposed $387 million for this activity. I do not see how that
improves our fire readiness.
Congress enacted the fire cap to stop the Forest Service
from turning into the fire service. I am concerned this budget
would only speed up that transition. We should not jeopardize
the future health of our forests by cutting programs that
prevent fires through management and restoration of our
National Forests and assisting States and private landowners to
do the same.
One concrete step we can take is to pass a supplemental
that responds to the needs of all Americans suffering from
national natural disasters. Both the House and Senate versions
I support include repayment of the $720 million borrowed last
year. Even though the administration has not requested
repayment, it is important this funding is available for this
summer.
We also need your help, Chief, to extend the fire cap
beyond its initial 2-year authority. I know that your fire
chief is doing her utmost to clamp down on unnecessary costs,
but waste, fraud, or abuse cannot be tolerated. Stories of
misuse will not help extend what is an essential tool for
combating the escalating needs to fight catastrophic fires and
redirecting the Forest Service budget towards land management
rather than just fire suppression.
One bright spot in the budget proposal is the Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund, which would support deferred maintenance
needs by accessing energy development revenue not dedicated to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In previous iterations of this proposal, the Forest Service
has been left out, but this year's proposal includes all land
management agencies and Bureau of Indian Education Schools.
This is a positive change. I look forward to working on this
issue to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog.
I hope that working together once again, the Chairman and I
can give you the resources to do the job that you and the
Forest Service employees across the Country, from Hawaii to
Alaska to New Mexico to Puerto Rico signed up for, and that is
to help the American people enjoy and benefit from their public
lands for generations to come.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Chief Christiansen, we turn to you for your comments, and
then we will have plenty of time for questions this morning.
Again, thank you for being here, and we look forward to your
statement.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 FOREST SERVICE BUDGET PROPOSAL
STATEMENT OF VICKI CHRISTIANSEN, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN RAPP, DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC
PLANNING, BUDGET, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Ms. Christiansen. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you
for inviting me to testify today. I do deeply appreciate your
support to work on improving the conditions of the Nation's
forests and grasslands through active management and innovation
and not doing business as usual.
Today, I will update you on three areas of our work: first,
our progress in overcoming challenges and actively stewarding
the forests and grasslands; our ground plan for 2020; and our
work to champion a strong workforce and healthy workplace.
In terms of our work on the ground, we are seeing results.
We have made good use of funds, new authorities, and tools to
do more to confront the threats facing forests and communities.
We are building off a facility 20-year high in forest
treatments last year, which yielded 3.2 billion feet of timber,
and we also treated 3.4 million acres to reduce hazardous
fuels, surpassing our annual target.
Shared stewardship is fast becoming our preferred mode for
doing work. It is our best chance in improving the health of
all forests.
We have reached out and worked across boundaries to reduce
fire risk, improve forest conditions, and help communities.
We have executed nearly 200 good-neighbor agreements in 37
States to get more work done on the National Forests. We are
forging shared stewardship agreements that set mutual goals and
priorities at large scales.
Secretary Perdue signed the first stewartship agreement
with the Western Governors Association. We have recently signed
shared stewardship agreements with Idaho and Washington State,
and more are on the way.
Internally, we are nearing completion of critical reforms
that ease process burdens, reduce costs, and break the barriers
that slow our work. We are completing work that streamlines the
decision process and meets our environmental responsibility.
As part of this effort, we expect to release our new
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules later this
summer. We are taking steps to be more cost effective in fire
response and pursuing long-term actions to reduce costs. We are
improving our financial accountability.
We have geared up to fully employ new Farm Bill
authorities. They put more science-based tools in our toolbox
to do more work.
Expansion of the good-neighbor authority and provisions for
wood innovation will rapidly be put to good use.
The Forest Service is well positioned to build on this
momentum. The President's $5.7 billion budget places emphasis
on our critical work. It focuses on reducing wildland fire
risk, improving forest and grassland conditions, and
contributing to rural economies. It does reflect tough choices
and tradeoffs. It helps us build on a shared stewardship
approach.
In fiscal year 2020, we are also pleased the first funding
fix will take effect. The damaging practice of fire transfer
will likely become part of the past. We will no longer
sacrifice critical work to pay for firefighting.
The $1.3 billion request for fire preparedness helps us to
be ready for another tough fire year.
Lastly, our mission success depends on a highly skilled,
motivated workforce. We will continue our work to end sexual
harassment and retaliation.
Last year, we listened to employees. We learned from them,
and we acted to bring about change. Today employees are better
equipped with new tools, stricter policies, a new code of
conduct, and supervisory support.
This summer, we will ban alcohol at all shared housing.
These actions are necessary to achieve sustained cultural
change. It will not happen as quickly as we would like, but I
am determined to lead a permanent change in the Forest Service.
In turn, we will make good on the investments of this
Congress and provide the services and the sound stewardship
this Nation deserves.
Thank you. I am looking forward to our Q&A.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Statement of Victoria Christiansen
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for the Forest Service.
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget for the USDA Forest Service
totals nearly $5.7 billion. Of that, $559 million is mandatory funding.
It is a good investment for the American people and will enable us to
make progress in addressing the critical condition of America's
forests. Up to 80 million acres of the National Forest System, about 4
in every 10 acres, are at moderate to high risk from catastrophic fire.
Other threats include regional drought, invasive species, and major
outbreaks of insects and disease. Stakeholders of the USDA Forest
Service broadly agree on the need for active measures to address the
threats across many of the landscapes we manage, and Congress has done
their part to help. I appreciate the support and innovative authorities
that Congress provided in the 2014 Farm Bill, the 2018 Omnibus, and the
2018 Farm Bill to help us do more to improve the conditions of our
forests and grasslands and protect communities. This is an indication
of Congress' expectations and trust in us, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you to meet those expectations. There is much
more work to be done to improve landscape resiliency for present and
future generations, but we are committed to doing the right work in the
right places at the right scale.
In 2018, Secretary Perdue announced a new strategy entitled,
``Toward Shared Stewardship Across Landscapes: An Outcome-Based
Investment Strategy'' that calls for stronger collaborative
decisionmaking with States and partners and employs new technology that
can be shared. To do this, we will continue to reform our processes to
better serve those connected to the land, improve infrastructure, and
collaborate with our partners to set mutual goals and priorities to get
more work done across landscapes. Use of tools like the Good Neighbor
Authority, with more than 200 agreements in 37 States, 20-year
stewardship contracts with cancellation ceiling relief, and other
internal process improvements, including environmental analysis
decisionmaking, is reducing the time and cost needed to produce high
quality and science-based decisions that are accomplished effectively
and efficiently. The agency continues our work on other fiscal reforms,
and identifying new reforms, to ensure accountability and credibility
for every dollar we receive. In this Budget the USDA Forest Service
proposes a new budget structure that will eliminate cost pools, improve
transparency and accountability, and will enable efficient delivery of
integrated programs at an ecosystem/landscape scale level.
Fortunately, implementation of the fiscal component of the fire
funding fix begins in fiscal year 2020. The USDA Forest Service is
requesting access to $1.95 billion of the overall resources authorized
in the recently enacted ``wildfire cap adjustment.'' This, in addition
to the Suppression funding requested in the President's budget, should
dramatically reduce the need for transferring funds from our other
mission programs to cover firefighting costs. Access to the wildfire
cap adjustment has stabilized our budgeting environment and the
President's Budget is proposing funding increases to line items to
improve the condition of our forests.
We recognize that the successful delivery of services and work
starts with a highly skilled, motivated workforce. Forest Service
employees remain our largest and most important investment. They are
essential to confronting the arduous challenges facing America's
forests and grasslands and are integral to the services and experiences
we provide to citizens and local communities. We are aware that we must
do more to stop harassment, bullying and retaliation. We have taken,
and continue to take, significant steps to improve policies,
accountability, reporting systems, and training around the workplace
environment. I want to reaffirm my commitment to continue the hard work
that will improve our agency's culture; to continue transparency before
this subcommittee, Congress and the public we serve; and to achieve a
workplace where all employees are treated with respect and dignity, so
that they do not fear for their safety--physically or emotionally.
the president's 2020 budget
The fiscal year 2020 request focuses on three primary areas:
reducing wildland fire risk, improving forest and grassland conditions
through shared stewardship, and contributing to rural economic
prosperity. To address these focus areas, the Budget makes significant
investments in the following program areas:
--$1.34 billion is proposed for Fire Preparedness, which enables the
Forest Service to maintain its existing firefighting capability
and funds all base 8 salary costs for firefighters.
--$1.011 billion is proposed for Suppression, the 2015 10-year
average, base funding set by the 2018 Omnibus which will be
frozen through fiscal year 2027.
--The budget seeks $1.95 billion of the authorized wildfire funding
fix cap adjustment for wildfire suppression activities.
--This, in addition to the $1.011 billion for Suppression, would
provide about $3 billion for wildland fire suppression
activities in fiscal year 2020.
--$450 million is proposed for Hazardous Fuels, which supports the
agency's emphasis on improving the condition of the Nation's
forests and grasslands while enhancing their resilience to the
negative effects of wildland fire.
--$375 million is proposed for Forest Products, which will support
the sale of 3.7 billion board feet of timber. The Forest
Service is working to improve the speed and agility in the
planning and execution of land management actions, including
timber sales.
--$77 million is proposed for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
Program, which generates data on past, current, and projected
tree inventories for all 50 States. The FIA program enables the
natural resource community to understand the magnitude of
changes in forest conditions and trends, and to make
projections of future conditions--information which is vital to
the long-term health of forests and the sustained availability
of multiple uses from forests.
legislative proposals
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget proposes several key
legislative changes to improve our effectiveness in delivering programs
and services:
--Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act Reauthorization (FLREA):
The proposal is to reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act through September 30, 2022. The revenues
collected from these recreation fees are an important source of
funding to enhance the visitor experience through maintenance,
operations, and improvements to recreation facilities on public
lands. This is an interagency proposal with the Department of
the Interior. The Triennial Report to Congress on
Implementation of FLREA, published in May 2012, contained
several ``Considerations for the Future of the Program,'' which
set the foundation for the interagency proposal.
--Grazing Permits: The proposal would amend the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA) to correct the 2015 National Defense
Authorization Act amendment to FLPMA Section 402. For this
section only, all National Forest System lands would be
included so that grazing permits on national forests in eastern
States and National Grasslands are treated equally in National
Environmental Policy Act analysis of grazing permits.
--Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires
that comprehensive river management plans be prepared within 3
years following a Wild and Scenic River designation. This
proposal would change the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to state
that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not be in violation of
Section 3(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act solely
because more than 3 years have passed since a river was
designated ``wild and scenic'' and a comprehensive river
management plan has not yet been completed. If more than 3
years have passed since designation without the completion of a
comprehensive river management plan, the proposal would require
that a plan must be completed or appropriately updated no later
than during the next forest plan revision process.
--Forest Botanical Products: This proposal would reauthorize the
Forest Botanical Products Program for charging and retaining
fees for the harvest of forest botanical products. The
objective of the program is to provide for the sale and harvest
of forest botanical products in a sustainable manner that
contributes to meeting the Nation's demand for these goods and
services. The proposal would extend the agency's existing
authority for 1 year, to September 30, 2020. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2014 extended this authority beyond a
pilot program through September 30, 2019.
--Communication Site Program--Administrative Fee Retention: This
proposal would authorize appropriation of a new programmatic
administrative fee for communications use authorizations to
cover the costs of administering the Forest Service's
communications site program on National Forest System (NFS)
lands. This new fee, which was authorized by the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018, subject to appropriation, would allow
the agency to better manage the growing use of Forest Service
lands for communications facilities to better serve its
customers, emergency services, and visitors to NFS lands by
providing expanded telecommunications capabilities, including
cellular coverage and broadband access, to rural communities.
--Mineral Receipts; Public Land Infrastructure Fund: This proposal
allows the Forest Service to be eligible to use up to 10
percent annually from the Administration's Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund. This proposed fund was included in the
Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2020 budget request to
address deferred maintenance needs. The Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund would be supported by the deposit of 50
percent of all Federal energy development revenue that would
otherwise be credited or deposited as miscellaneous receipts to
the Treasury over the 2020-2024 period, subject to an annual
limit of $1.3 billion.
--Cost recovery Minerals: This proposal would authorize the Forest
Service to retain and spend new cost recovery fees for
locatable mineral plans of operations and surface use plans of
operations for oil and gas leases, and other written Forest
Service authorizations relating to the disposal of locatable
and leasable (but not saleable) minerals on all NFS lands. The
agency currently has the authority to collect such fees but
does not because we are unable to retain the fees. The
provision caps the amount that may be retained at $60 million
annually. This proposal would better align the Forest Service
with the Department of the Interior.
--Cost Recovery for Land Uses/Infrastructure Special Use Processing:
This proposal would change the agency's cost recovery authority
to allow the collection of funds associated with the full cost
of processing a land use-related special use proposal. The
amendment would authorize the agency to collect fees at the
very beginning of the screening process rather than waiting
until an application has been fully screened and accepted for
consideration. Under the current cost recovery law, only when a
proposal becomes an application is the agency able to recover
costs to process the application.
Coupled with the expanded authorities Congress has provided and our
internal reforms, these legislative proposals will translate to better
results, and increased production and work in our Nation's forests and
grasslands.
In closing, the Forest Service's fiscal year 2020 budget request
prioritizes investments to reduce wildland fire risk, improve forest
and grassland conditions through shared stewardship with our partners,
and contribute to rural economic prosperity. It requires tough choices
within our existing program of work and will compel us to make delivery
of forest and rangeland products and services. We will also need to
ensure better cost containment and accounting for our spending. The
Forest Service will continue to meet this challenge. I look forward to
working with this subcommittee to fulfill the President's goals and our
key responsibilities for the long-term benefit of the Nation's forests
and grasslands and for all Americans. I will be glad to answer your
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that.
Let us move into questions here. I wanted to start with
something that Senator Udall has raised, and this is the
proposal to cut both the State fire assistance and the
volunteer fire assistance.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET CUTS
Typically, you have your State and your local agencies that
are literally the first responders. As I understand it, this
was true 78 percent of the time in 2018, and this was whether
the fire was on State or Federal lands. But it is the State and
local agencies that are there first.
These two programs trained over 119,000 firefighters last
year alone and provided over $17 million in funding for local
firefighting departments to purchase new equipment or upgrade
existing. Both of these programs significantly reduce the
overall Federal fire suppression costs by letting the State and
local departments get in there and move first, attacking these
wildfires when they are small.
I am with Senator Udall on this. I just do not understand
why you would undercut this funding at the State and local
levels.
It seems to me that this gives you extraordinary leverage
with just a little bit of funding. What is the rationale behind
this cut?
Ms. Christiansen. Thanks for being so aware of the leverage
of these--the volunteer fire assistance and State fire
assistance.
I can tell you as a former State forester in two different
States, it is a critical partnership. You said it. It is a
system in America that we have in response to wildland fire. No
one organization can do it alone, and we leverage on our
strengths. And, of course, the local firefighters are there
immediately in community.
So there is an investment. We still have a request.
Unfortunately, it is reduced because we had to make these very
tough choices and tradeoffs about the conditions of America's
forests and meet the administration's instructions to reduce
our fiscal year 2019 budget request by 5 percent. So, in doing
that, we had to get really specific and focused. It was about
improving the conditions of the forests so we can reduce long
term the risk from fire and to sustain rural economies. They
were really tough choices. We would be happy to work with you
on this.
Senator Murkowski. Chief, I recognize that before you were
Chief of the Forest Service, you were a firefighter on the
ground, and I think you know full well that these significant
reductions in these accounts send the message to those first
responders at the State and local level that, ``We are going to
handle it on the Federal side, you guys.'' I do not think that
that is the message that we want to send. I do not think that
that is the message that these incredible men and women who
really are on the front lines deserve to hear. At a time when
we are conscious of the budget and need to be looking to find
reductions, we should not undercut the assistance that we
receive from those who are responding locally, but instead
recognize what that contribution means to that local economy.
You have said that the goal here of the administration is
two-pronged. Let us focus on the prevention side, but let us
also address the local economies.
I can tell you firsthand that in some of our more remote
communities, it is our fire crews that are out there on the
front lines. This is their whole economy during the summer;
this is the income that these men and women bring back to the
village after the fire season is over.
I appreciate you saying that you are going to work with us
on this. I want to believe that your heart is not really into
defending this cut. Please know that Senator Udall and I feel
pretty strongly that this is not a place to be making a
reduction like this.
Let me turn to you, Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you. You said it so well. I could not
agree more.
I think that, Chief, this is a strong message to you of
where we come out on this.
Chief, we recently learned that the secure rural school
payments for 2018, which Senator Murkowski and I worked to
include with the fire cap authorization, were being hit with a
sequester. I asked my staff to look into it, and the Budget
Office told us you are correcting that decision and the
counties will receive their full payments.
Can you tell me when you expect those corrected payments to
be issued?
PAYMENTS TO SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
Ms. Christiansen. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
You are correct. There were some different interpretations
on whether sequestration should be applied. That has been
corrected, and we distributed the funds to the States earlier
this week. And they should be hitting the actual States by the
end of this week. So it has been executed.
Senator Udall. Yes. Check is in the mail. Good.
Senator Murkowski. Good.
Senator Udall. Okay.
Ms. Christiansen. ``In the ether,'' I think it is called
now.
Senator Udall. Yes. Okay.
And I know you have been through this a lot, but the
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
monies are very, very important for education, for law
enforcement, for those kinds of needs, and so we just need to
make sure they know that they are going to be getting them.
As I stated in my remarks, I am very focused on ensuring
that the fire cap last beyond its current 2-year authorization
for fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021, but to do that, we
need the Forest Service to be extra judicious in spending fire
dollars. We need your help to show that this funding is spent
well so that we can retain the authority.
Chief, will you commit to us that you will keep a watchful
eye on fire spending and will give your budget director and
fire director the tools they need to track and manage these
expenditures so that every dollar is a dollar well spent?
FIRE CAP FUNDING
Ms. Christiansen. Absolutely, Senator. We have a wildland
fire system improvement plan that I get briefed on regularly.
We know that Congress has put faith in us as a Forest Service
that we will be a good investment, both how we get after
improving the conditions and doing the prevention on the
ground, but that we do not see this new account as a blank
check. So we have several things in play on accountability,
good decisions, and really ensuring that our contracts are
right-sized. We do not want to not be ready for fire season,
but that we have the right resources, right place, and we are
ready.
And I would be more than happy to come up and brief you
more on what we are doing on that front.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you very much.
How does the President's budget enable the Forest Service
to adequately address the pace and scale necessary to restore
America's forests and begin reducing the dominating focus of
the service on fire suppression?
RESTORING AMERICA'S FORESTS
Ms. Christiansen. Thank you. You have asked the heart of
the question that we are really working hard on.
Our forests across the Nation are in peril. We all know
that, and we need to really work on treating the right acres
that are going to do the most to reduce risk. So it is not
about just treating the most acres necessarily; it is treating
the right acres. That is really the call to action in this
shared stewardship framework.
Alaska's needs are going to be slightly different than New
Mexico's needs, as an example, and we want to be in
conversation, convening the partners at the State level to talk
about that. So that is number one. It is our approach, and it
is not from a Federal dominance. It is that we are all in this
together. So we want to look together at the landscape.
Additionally, as we just talked about, it is about putting
our focus in improving the conditions and, quite frankly, the
resiliency of these forests because without these forests, all
those other benefits that so many different people care about--
recreation, water, hunting and fishing, subsistence, and
everything else are going to be compromised significantly. So
we are really laser-focused about reducing the risk on the
landscape, but this takes all of us.
We know we cannot just keep spending all our money on the
increasing complexity of fire. It is more complex, but we need
to demonstrate that we are making good decisions and we are in
partnership with our local communities on how we make those
decisions on wildland fire.
So we are working on several fronts, Senator, to find the
right balance to really make a difference on the landscape.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you so much for your taking on many
challenges in managing our National Forests, and I may be
weighing in on very similar topics to my colleagues. Fire is
just an enormous threat to the Pacific Northwest.
We have had two summers, 2017 and 2018, with a lot of
fires, a much longer fire season, more fires burned, and a lot
more smoke damage. Of course, at the same time that we had risk
to towns in Oregon, we had devastating fires in California,
including the Paradise fire.
Senator Widen and I were very pleased to see the fix to
fire borrowing. Do you support extending that fix beyond a 2-
year period?
EXTENDING FIRE FIX CAP
Ms. Christiansen. Absolutely. We are going to do everything
we can to show that we are a good investment and that we can
make a difference on the ground because you all did not do it
just out of the kindness of your heart. You expect a
difference.
Senator Merkley. Well, it makes a big difference if the
Forest Service is not continuously put into a situation of
borrowing against all of its other programs in order to fight
fires, a situation we have seen so often, and many of us have
had to work together to try to refund the deficit run-up with
the Forest Service in that fashion. But interrupting those
programs makes no sense.
This also frees up, in the discretionary budget, hundreds
of millions of dollars. Do you think we should put those
hundreds of millions into preventing fires in the first place,
through thinning and fuels treatments in our forests?
HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT
Ms. Christiansen. Senator, we clearly need to focus and get
more work done on the ground. I do not think there is any
denying that.
In this budget proposal, we had to make some very difficult
choices and tradeoffs, following the administration's
instructions of reducing by 5 percent or 2020 proposal from the
2019 proposal, and where we did put the focus was on improving
the conditions of the forests to reduce the wildland fire risk
and to sustaining rural economies. So that is how you will see
this budget request was shaped up.
We will always be able to use more resources to get good
work done on the ground.
Senator Merkley. So I did not really see that in your
budget. I saw a slight increase in the vegetation management
account, the modest increase of $15 million, and yet there is
hundreds of millions of dollars available with this change and
the cap.
I also saw a devastating of the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program. We have three collaboratives in
Oregon. The authorizing committees have doubled the amount of
money that can be appropriated. So we added $40 million to $40
million to $80 million, and you cut $40 million out of $40
million to zero. And these collaboratives have brought the two
sides of the conversation, the timber community, the
environmental community, and all the local stakeholders into
the same room, work out prescriptions, stayed out of the
courts, and done a tremendous amount of thinning and fuels
reduction that makes the forest healthier.
So since this is one of the really big wins in ending the
timber wars and improving the health of our forests, why is the
account zeroed out?
COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM
Ms. Christiansen. Senator, you are absolutely right about
the collaborative efforts across the Nation, particularly in
the Northwest but many other places, and the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). It has been a
great success. It brings common shared values together and
support for holistic treatments on the ground.
With that said, because there is not a specific request for
CFLRP does not mean we will not continue to fund those efforts.
It is just in our regular line items.
You are not going to see a lot of plus-ups in the request
because, again, we needed to reduce by 5 percent of our 2019
request. So in making those tough choices, we focused keeping
stable our forest vegetation and watershed management and
hazardous fuels lines.
Senator Merkley. I am almost out of time. So I will jump to
one other piece of this, which then--if in fact we do not have
a 5 percent cut because Congress bipartisan way weighs in and
says reducing the fire risk in our forest is extremely
important, do you think the collaboratives are a very
important, valuable contribution to the work we are doing?
Ms. Christiansen. Absolutely. We could not do the amount of
work we are doing without them.
Senator Merkley. And if we can find the money, that we
should do a lot more work on the front end, rather than just
fighting the fires on the back end?
Ms. Christiansen. We will always work to do the mitigation,
prevention, and with the best investment intentions possible.
Senator Merkley. To give you an example, in Oregon, we have
2.2 million acres that have been cleared environmentally. A lot
of people think, oh, it is the environmental rules. No, we have
2.2 million acres ready for fuels treatment. It is all an issue
of whether or not we have the programs to fund that work, and
that means good jobs in the woods, jobs in the logging trucks,
jobs in the mill, greater fire resistant, a better forest for
ecosystem, and a better forest for timber production. It is a
win all the way around.
When we have something that is a win on so many fronts, I
want to see us do more of it, not less.
Ms. Christiansen. I agree. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
Spruce bark beetle is back in Alaska, and they are on
steroids this time. When they were in the State about 15 years
ago they really decimated so many parts of the Kenai Peninsula,
and now they have moved northward into South Central.
About a million acres have been infested in the Mat-Su
Valley and down on the Kenai Peninsula, and we have had two
very popular campgrounds that have been completely closed
before they were even opened because of what we are seeing with
the beetle kill.
I understand that the next round of monitoring flyovers in
July are expected to increase what we have assessed that has
been damaged and destroyed already.
As we talk about ways that we are going to be preventing
fire, one of the problems with this beetle kill is that it
destroys the health of the tree and makes them more vulnerable
to these fires when they come through. Yet, the budget proposes
a 25 percent cut to the Forest Service Western Bark Beetle
Initiative.
So I am asking the same question that I did before. Is this
a smart reductions? We do not have any projects in Alaska under
the 2014 Farm Bill insect and disease area authority. I do not
understand why.
I do not understand cuts to these types of programs. This
is not just in Alaska--we will hear it in Montana and Colorado
and other parts around the West where the spruce bark beetle or
different iterations of these insects are causing extensive
damage.
Can you speak to me about what it is that we are doing
within Forest Service to ensure that we have adequate resources
there to provide for more robust tree removal, fire break, fuel
breaks, and also including the community wildfire protection
plans?
SPRUCE BARK BEETLE
Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, Senator.
First, I will definitely reinforce how you describe the
situation with the spruce beetle in the Mat-Su and the Kenai.
It has accelerated extensively over the last 3 years.
I am pleased to say it is primarily on private lands, and I
will get back to the funding here in a minute.
But our mission is to help sustain the Nation's forests and
grasslands, and we do that with and through other folks.
Senator Murkowski. Those private lands are right next to
your lands.
Ms. Christiansen. They are right next to our lands, but
we----
Senator Murkowski. The bugs do not care.
Ms. Christiansen. And just like fire, they do not respect
boundaries.
So what we were able to do immediately was to use $2
million from our State and Private Forestry funds in addition
to the western bark beetle funds, was to put these funds into
Alaska in an all-out effort, collaborative way, that we are
working on together.
We signed a new good-neighbor agreement with the Chugach so
we can do some cross-boundary work, and the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources, Parks, and Forestry and we are all being
proactive instead of waiting for the disastrous fire and the
damaging windfall to people and structures.
We are investing in the critical work that needs to be done
to do fuel breaks and to take out the hazardous trees.
On the research and development side, this is the other
piece that the Forest Service helps provide. There is a couple
trials of treatments. It is systemic insecticides and an anti-
aggregate pheromones. Now, I do not know a lot about those yet,
but we are doing some trials up there to see if there are some
ways we can naturally help get it back.
Senator Murkowski. Are those sprayed, or how do you apply
that?
Ms. Christiansen. I can get back to you on that. I do not
have full understanding of them. The pheromones are not. The
insecticides, I am not sure about.
Senator Murkowski. Yes. If you can have somebody let us
know what it is we are talking about.
Ms. Christiansen. We will get you more information.
[The information follows:]
More info on systemic insecticide and anti-aggregate pheromone (for
treating AK spruce bark beetle). Answer below:
--Both techniques are still experimental.
--Systemic insecticides are chemicals injected into the trunks of
healthy spruce trees to protect them against attacks by spruce
beetles. These insecticides are being tested to see how
effective they are in protecting individual trees in high value
situations, such as campgrounds or suburban landscapes. These
would not be used in large-scale forest situations.
--Anti-aggregation pheromones can treat larger areas. They are
beetle-produced chemicals that repel beetles from attacking
trees, and are being tested for effectiveness in protecting
high value trees or possibly forest landscapes. This is still
in the early stages of experimentation and FS R&D is working
with the State assess effectiveness.
Ms. Christiansen [continuing]. But, anyway, our researchers
are up there because we are looking about how to keep the
natural beetles, of course, but how to keep them in balance.
FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT
In respect to the funding, we have two items with forest
health. It is forest health on the national, forest system, and
forest health cooperative, meaning for all lands.
We treat them as a bundle because fires know no boundaries,
but the cooperative forest health is to invest and leverage
with the State fund so that we can, again, address a landscape-
scale problem.
Unfortunately, I have said it before, we had to make some
tough choices and tradeoffs. So the cooperative forest health
was reduced, not because we do not recognize there is a
problem, but we had to make some tough choices. We will always
be as effective as we can with our investments leveraging
really good partnerships. I think there are some good ones in
Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you know that for us, it is not a
situation of if we want to partner. We know we have to, but
again, as I think of those ways that we can help the Federal
Government save money, the more we can put into the up-front
for the prevention the better it will be in the end. And I
think every one of my colleagues on this subcommittee would
agree that those are monies that are well spent.
Let me go to Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chair Murkowski and Ranking
Member Udall.
Chief Christiansen, welcome.
Ms. Christiansen. Hi.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Senator Daines. Good to see you.
I will tell you I do appreciate your 2020 budget's focus on
hazardous fuels reduction. It is a big deal in Montana,
reducing wildfire risk. I am disappointed that the
administration has zeroed out the very important Land and Water
Conservation Fund. I mean, this is following a 92-to-8 vote in
the Senate to permanently authorize LWCF. I frankly found that
like a slap in the face when we saw that come from the
administration. Very disappointing.
This is a critical tool to help facilitate and increase
access to public lands in places like Montana for outdoor
recreation, protecting our State's iconic wildlife habitat, our
water quality, providing a steady supply of timber to many of
our mills who are struggling to survive.
In fact, one of the great stats in LWCF, it has funded over
70 percent of the fishing accesses across Montana, have come
through LWCF. Many of Montana's LWCF projects are actually
Forest Service projects. Congress made a historic step
protecting this program by enacting permanent reauthorization
in a bipartisan public lands package.
In fact, there are a few things that unite Congress
anymore. This public lands package was one of them, and LWCF
was an anchor part of that important bill.
I think it is time that we now back up that vote that we
saw earlier this year with full mandatory funding.
The House appropriators are taking a strong step forward by
funding LWCF more than it has been funded in 15 years. I am
glad to see that. I hope this subcommittee will follow suit,
and as we do that, we will need the Forest Service to ensure
that projects are adequately assessed and ranked to ensure the
funding can be implemented.
And I know for certain, though the administration zeroed it
out, I guarantee you this subcommittee will fund LWCF in a much
more robust fashion. I would like to see permanent mandatory
ultimately, but as we continue that fight, in the meantime, we
need to keep bumping the funding up through this subcommittee.
So my question, Chief, is, will you commit to us today to
work with us to ensure that our increased funding can be
implemented effectively and quickly?
Ms. Christiansen. Senator, yes. And let me just say that we
too understand the extreme importance of access to our public
lands, and I want to acknowledge the work that Congress did on
the public lands package. It is really significant.
We submitted the list of projects, and there is a wealth of
projects earlier this month to this subcommittee. So we stand
ready to implement what Congress would fund.
Senator Daines. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you on that, Chief.
MULTI-USE RECREATION
Shifting gears for a moment, Chief, in Montana, we are
seeing a decrease in multiple-use recreation in our National
Forests. As a U.S. Senator who spends probably more time in
wilderness areas than probably any Senator here, I spent a lot
of time above 9,000 feet, at times above 10,000 feet, every
summer than most Members of Congress, I certainly appreciate
the value of balanced use of our public lands, and too often,
though, I hear across our State about diminished access to our
treasured public lands because not everyone can climb to 10,000
feet with a 40- to 50-pound backpack on their back.
I am thankful I still can. Someday there will be a point
where I cannot. Specifically, forest plans in the Bitterroot
and elsewhere are locking out historic uses, such as mountain
biking, such as snow mobiling in areas that are not designated
as wilderness. These are trails that some families have used
literally for generations, and now they are banned from that
area.
I recently wrote to you on March 7 regarding a very
troubling statement in a planning document stating that
managing for mountain biking, quote, was extremely challenging,
end quote, and suggesting it should be avoided. However, I am
happy to receive your agency's response just last night and
that you are meeting with cycling groups to explore more
opportunities in the forests prior to finalization of the
Travel and Management Plan.
I can tell you that is welcome news for Montana's
recreation community. We are trying to strike a balance there,
truly, because we have competing interests and so forth across
our community.
My question is, Can I get your commitment to work with
these recreation groups and to support some of the longstanding
and existing access opportunities as you update this as well as
other forest plans?
Ms. Christiansen. Absolutely, Senator.
As I said, we recognize the importance of access, and it is
balancing our multiple-use mandates. It is about sitting down
and working this out together, and we will always commit to
that. And under my watch, it will be a priority.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chief.
HASSELL REPORT
Senator Murkowski. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Christiansen, I know that you have experience in the
Southwest as Arizona State forester and that you have visited
New Mexico, but I want you to know that you--but I want to know
whether you are familiar with the Hassell Report, which sets
out ways for the Forest Service to recognize the unique
cultural heritage in New Mexico and how to make the resources
of National Forests and the work they generate contribute more
effectively in local communities--are you familiar with that
report?
Ms. Christiansen. I am familiar with that report. That
really calls out the cycle and mistrust that we are working to
be very aware, sensitively aware of the needs of the natives of
New Mexico.
Senator Udall. I think your answer is very good. It is a
50-year-old document, and while some of the statements within
it are outdated and others are inaccurate, I believe it
continues to give valuable insights into how we view our land
and how it should be managed.
I think it should be required reading for all Forest
Service employees, not just those working in New Mexico,
because it sets out a framework for collaboration and building
trust between a community and the Forest Service.
So I want you to know that Cal Joyner, our Regional
Forester, is putting these recommendations to work, and people
that he is working with are very happy. In the 6 years Cal has
been our Regional Forester, he has made sure that the Forest
Service works hand in hand with land grants and acequias that
are unique to New Mexico. On everything from forest plan
revisions to guidance on maintenance and repairs, Cal and his
staff have conducted extensive outreach to make sure our local
traditional communities have the opportunity for meaningful
input. It is not an easy balancing act, but I really appreciate
the work that you and he are doing on that.
2018 FARM BILL--NEW AUTHORITY
I wanted to get a question in here on the new authority you
received under the Farm Bill, the 2018 Farm Bill that we just
passed. It allowed the Forest Service to enter into 638
contracts with Tribes for forestry work on adjacent public
lands. Do you have a timeline for when the agency will start
contracting with Tribes using this new 638 authority? Do you
support this new authority, and are you going to be using it
soon?
Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, we support the new authority. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has had it for many years, and that we can use
this authority.
We are working. I have a Farm Bill task group focused on
implementation, and we will have a template by early summer,
and then, of course, it is building the relationships. We have
the relationships with the Pueblos and Tribes in New Mexico,
but we need to have a willing partner.
So we are making sure we stand ready to do those 638 or
self-determination contracts as quickly as possible.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
I noticed today you are actually doing a listening session
between 1:00 and 2:30 eastern time on this specific subject.
Ms. Christiansen. You bet, we are.
Senator Udall. So you are out there working on it.
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
In 2018--this is the questions on wildlife corridors. In
2018, Secretary Zinke issued a secretarial order relating to
improving habitat for big game species in their winter range
and migration corridors, but the goals in implementation of
that order does not apply to the Forest Service.
I believe the Forest Service plays a crucial role in
maintaining the natural habitats and connectivity corridors for
all native wildlife, including big game. Would you agree with
that? What more could the Forest Service do in conjunction with
other land managers to maintain wildlife corridors?
Ms. Christiansen. Yes. Thank you. We are certainly part of
the landscape and are well aware and working at the local and
regional level on that secretarial order together. It does not
happen just on Interior lands.
So we have rolled up our sleeves, and we are doing shared
planning together with our partners.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
I think you are probably well aware of the U.N. report that
came out in terms of the endangered species. So I think it is
important that all of our public land managers and the Forest
Service be aware of that and try to work on this corridors
issue.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
TIMBER IN THE TONGASS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
Chief, let me follow up on a conversation that we had about
timber in the Tongass last month when you testified before the
Energy Committee, talking about the 10-year history of timber
volume offered and sold and how that relates to the volume
target set for each year.
Can you explain, as you review this history every year, the
volume offered? And outside of 2017, how much of that volume is
a reoffer of sales from prior years that did not sell? Do you
have that information?
Ms. Christiansen. Senator, I do not have that specific
information. I do not want to guess.
Senator Murkowski. Well, please help me with understanding
that. I am looking to understand what would have been a reoffer
from prior years, and then going forward, if those were
reoffers, why would the Forest Service expect that these
reoffered sales are going to be of interest to the industry
now?
Ms. Christiansen. Yes. No, I understand your question.
Senator Murkowski. I am trying to understand where we are
with the volumes.
Ms. Christiansen. So let me speak in generalities, but I
want to make sure we confirm specifics.
We do not just offer and then hope for a different result a
few months later and offer again. We will look at all of the
factors of why.
Senator Murkowski. Why it was not interesting in the first
place.
Ms. Christiansen. There are times it might be market
forces, but there are many other times, at least part of why it
did not get a purchaser, it did not get a bid would be because
we required too much or it is how we designed the sale or too
much roadwork, whatever it might be. So we will take a critical
review and we have folks that come in and do a review to say
what is it that this needs to have a viability to be a viable
sale in the future.
So we will retool them is usually what we call them based
on the factors we know of why they did not get a bid.
Senator Murkowski. Do you take feedback or input from the
industry as to why----
Ms. Christiansen. Oh, absolutely.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. It was of no interest in
the first place?
Ms. Christiansen. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I just want to make sure that I
have an accurate understanding of your description of what is
happening on the ground in the Tongass right now.
The timber sale program within the Tongass includes both
old growth and young growth, and since the 2016 plan was
adopted, Forest Service has not even come close to meeting the
annual volume target. The volume offered is approximately 66
percent of the target, but the key figure, which is the volume
sold, is only 31 percent of the target. And these statistics
just continue to go downhill if you look at just the old growth
volume sold. That is only 22 percent of the target.
My assessment is that the Forest Service continues to
struggle with its effort to identify, design, and sell economic
timber sales within the Tongass. The new forest plan, the
conservation overlays between the Tongass 77 and The Nature
Conservancy conservation priority areas in these plans and the
loss then of those areas with the Roadless exemption--these
have all come together to contribute to a shrinking land base
that makes it difficult to actually practice active forest
management.
I think this last planning round has pushed the Forest
Service over the edge, and even in the best of circumstances,
implementation is failing to produce sufficient timber in terms
of volume to sustain the industry and the community.
Am I giving an accurate description of where we are in the
Tongass today with these overlays and what that actually takes
off the table in terms of anything that could be considered an
economic sale?
Ms. Christiansen. I would frame it slightly different in
the short term and in the longer term.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Ms. Christiansen. In the short term you are absolutely
right about the challenges. In the short term, we have lands to
operate on.
Senator Murkowski. We would agree that that is both a very
short term.
Ms. Christiansen. Well, I am talking about the next 15 to
25 years.
We have taken on efforts for two large landscape
assessments so we can have the clearance and be ready to
provide volume, both old growth and the second growth, in the
years to come.
The Prince of Wales landscape assessment was really a
diverse collaborative, came together to look at the multiple
values, including old growth timber and the second growth. I
just spoke with our regional forester here in the last week,
and they have made the shifts. They have 40 million board feet,
and it being old growth, predominantly old growth, to put up
for sale, and about 20 percent of that was helicopter logging.
They have re-shifted, and they have retooled.
Senator Murkowski. Right. Because we no longer have the
helicopter.
Ms. Christiansen. Have the helicopter contract.
So now it is to design a sale that can be sold.
We are working in earnest, and it is a challenge. I would
be glad to work with you more, even come up to Alaska, so that
we can roll up our sleeves and really look at this.
Now, for the longer term, we know that there are changes
that need to be made to the new plans, some common sense
changes, the TU-77 streams, and the CAR soils. Now that we have
the Tongass Roadless under way and the Prince of Wales and
Central Tongass large landscape, we are working on those
amendments so that we can--what we have total agreement on, so
we can have more access to lands in the longer term.
Those plan amendments should be done in the next 6 to 9
months.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we do have a great deal to work
on. We have had a couple of good sit-downs with the Secretary
to try to reinforce with him why a total exemption to the
Roadless is what makes sense in the Tongass and to convey that
with every overlay, whether it is the implications of the
Roadless, whether it is the Tongass 77, whether it is the
conservation priority areas, with each one of these, you take
off the table an opportunity for a level of access and volume
that then puts you below these targets that we have set. And
they might look good on paper, but our ability to actually see
them translate, it is almost imaginary. And imaginary does not
help the economy. Imaginary does not keep these small operators
around.
The reality is the industry has changed so much. It is hard
for me to even describe it as an industry anymore. We lost the
last helicopter operator who basically picked up their assets
and moved out of State. We as a small operator cannot make it
work in our Nation's largest National Forest.
I welcome you up to the State anytime, summer, winter,
spring, fall, but I do appreciate your effort and your
willingness along with your acknowledgement of what goes on in
the forest to try to work with us.
We are trying to balance some things. You mentioned the
Prince of Wales, the pilot sale. That collaborative was
embraced by a lot of people, and I thought it was a good
outcome. And now, of course, that too is being challenged.
Ms. Christiansen. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
We are just trying to stay alive down there in Tongass.
Ms. Christiansen. I understand, and I am really committed
to keep digging deeper and working on this.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
FOREST RESTORATION PROJECTS
Senator Udall. Chief, the science continues to show us the
changes in our forests play a significant role in climate
change. Forest loss can both be cause and effect of climate
change. Conversely, restoring forests can sequester carbon and
stabilize our ecosystems. In fact, our National Forests absorb
119 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, about the
amount produced by 25 million cars.
Chief, what programs in this budget will increase the
Forest Service's reforestation efforts, and do you have a plan
to tackle the backlog of forest restoration projects?
Ms. Christiansen. Thank you for bringing that up, Senator.
A number that stays up front in my head is the forests in
the U.S. sequester 12 percent of the carbon emissions in this
Nation. That is not insignificant, and it shows the value of
healthy forests.
You are correct. We have a significant backlog in
reforestation, and that is largely because of the significant
wildfire, catastrophic wildfire events.
We have over 775 million acres that need to be planted, and
unfortunately, we are not able to keep up. That has been
extremely exacerbated by the fire borrowing and the lack of
repayment.
Where we take those funds when we have to borrow to pay the
historical fire bill from last year was out of the trust
accounts. Those are the accounts that go back into the forests
after they harvest to do the reforestation, and 720 million
acres were borrowed. And we have yet to be repaid. So it has
really put us back in being able to get that critical work done
in the ground.
In regards to the budget request, you did not see a huge
increase. Again, it was because of the really difficult
choices. So there is a need there, and I appreciate your
concern.
Senator Udall. And we would like to work with you on that.
Ms. Christiansen. You bet.
Senator Udall. I think we are working on legislation on
that too.
Ms. Christiansen. Appreciate that.
COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION
Senator Udall. On the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration, another proposed elimination I mentioned in my
opening statement is dedicated funding for Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration, also known as the CFLR. This program
funds 23 projects, as you know, across the country, projects in
many States represented on this subcommittee, including
California, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Oregon.
We also have two very important projects in New Mexico, in
the Southwest Jemez and Zuni Mountains. These projects have
brought together public and private land managers,
conservationists, and Pueblos in a way that benefits both
forest ecosystems and local economies.
The budget states that the projects are duplicative because
other Forest Service programs do restoration work on National
Forest system lands.
Am I to understand that the Forest Service would walk away
from these CFLR projects if this budget were adopted?
Ms. Christiansen. Senator, no, you are not to assume that,
and you are correct. They are extremely successful in bringing
a landscape view and landscape results.
I have been to both of those projects in New Mexico, and it
is amazing what it does to help bring those communities
together and to have multiple facets of success.
So we are shifting in the Forest Service that we did not
have to incentivize, come together and be collaborative, and
there might be some additional money. I mean, that is the good
side of it. That is what we mean by shared stewardship. It is a
way we have to do business.
So, in that respect, the last 10 years of having this CFLRP
stepped up our game, and it is changing the mindset within our
own organization of what it takes to be successful.
Senator Murkowski and I have had many conversations about
the communities of Southeast Alaska. We have to be a part of
that.
So that is the good news, and so we will still have an
expectation that we do work that way. We will just take the
funding out of our regular line items and make those a
priority.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
RECREATION--ALLOCATED USE AREAS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chief.
There is a lot of talk right now up in the State about
opportunities for new recreational areas on our Forest Service
lands. It is springtime, going into this season, and we have
got a lot of tourists.
I have been asking for a map that shows the distribution
and allocated use of the outfitter and guide special use
permitted areas on the Tongass. We have been asking for about a
year now. We have not received anything.
It is my understanding that when an outfitter or guide goes
through the application process for a permit, they actually sit
down with the Forest Service folks there in the community, and
they go over maps that show where the permitted areas are.
I do not understand why it has been so hard to get a map on
these recreation-allocated use areas. Can you check into that
for me?
Ms. Christiansen. Absolutely. I was not aware myself of
that request. I will absolutely put my emphasis point on that.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Yes. Like I say, they exist when
they are in the State, but what we would like is to have that
bigger map.
Do you know if these types of maps are digitized so that
information is available and accessible?
Ms. Christiansen. I am sure they are likely digitized,
Senator.
If your question is are they publicly available, that I do
not know.
Senator Murkowski. Well, if you can just check on the
status of the map----
Ms. Christiansen. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. That would be appreciated.
CHUGACH--NATIONAL FOREST
I talked about the Tongass a lot, but I should also address
our equally significant forest, the Chugach National Forest. It
is undergoing a long overdue land and resource management plan
revision. It dates back to 2002.
Last summer, a DEIS was published. That comment period
closed in November. I heard from a lot of folks in the State
that the plan does not provide enough access for all of the
multiple uses that are advocated by the forest users.
In particular, many are concerned that the draft plan does
not provide enough access, whether for timber harvest, mineral,
or recreational activities.
What is the status on the plan revision? I know there were
some concerns raised by some of our native corporations about
the application of the Roadless rule in context of the plan
revision. I do not know whether you are anticipating any
changes in management to the Roadless area in the Chugach, but
if you can discuss where we are with the plan?
Ms. Christiansen. I can certainly discuss the process. You
are right, the draft environmental impact statement draft plan
is out, and that is why it is out, is to receive public review
and comment.
Again, in talking with our regional forester last week, he
is personally watching over this process and ensuring that the
comments received are truly integrated in the best way we can
in the final plan.
So similar things to what you just summarized that you are
hearing, we have heard as well.
Senator Murkowski. Including on the Roadless?
Ms. Christiansen. Well, yes. We have heard those things,
but all of that input will be considered, and you will see a
difference, I am sure, in the final plan.
Senator Murkowski. Any indication in terms of when we might
see that?
Ms. Christiansen. Yes. Factoring in the process, to resolve
differences, we hope to have the final plan out by early fall
of this year.
FIRE BORROWING REPAYMENT
Senator Murkowski. Okay. The last question for me relates
to where we are, given the fact that we have not been able to
resolve the disaster supplemental. There has been discussion
about how the Forest Service is made whole for the fire
borrowing from last year, and we recognize that those funds
represent critical wildfire spending. They also represent other
important work that went undone because we did not have access
to the wildfire cap adjustment.
I am hopeful that we will have a final deal soon on the
supplemental that would include the fire borrowing repayment,
but I want to make sure that I understand what Forest Service
is planning for the fire season if we do not pass a
supplemental before the fire season really kicks into high
gear.
I did not think, quite honestly, that we would be sitting
here on May 15 and not have been able to sign off on a disaster
supplemental. I have been surprised that we are having this
conversation right now.
But can you share with me any steps that you are taking to
prepare for wildfire season, given the uncertainty of the fire
borrowing repayment? And then share with the subcommittee the
consequences of those funds not being repaid to date and the
consequences for the remainder of the fiscal year if we are not
able to pay them.
I know that this is all worst-case scenario, but we are
supposed to plan around here too.
Ms. Christiansen. Senator, thank you so much for the
question. This is one of the things that does keep me up at
night.
You are right. There are twofold concerns. One is that we
are unable to get the amount of work done on the ground.
I have pushed our folks in the field and said you have got
to plan like you have it, and so they are stepping up and
putting strike teams out there and all the rest of it to get
work.
Senator Murkowski. That is good because we do not want them
sitting and waiting until we get the okay from Washington, D.C.
Ms. Christiansen. Well, right, but now I said the money is
coming, and the money is not there. So they have had to switch
to appropriations.
The bottom line is it has had an effect for this year of
getting less work done, but the other big question that you
point out is these accounts will not be replenished, which is
where we normally draw from for the borrowing activity. As you
know, it is one more year that we have to deal with potential
fire borrowing.
The projections for fire for this season are again a wide
range, but it is significant. It is from $1.6 billion to $2.8
billion fire year. We have $1.7 billion for suppression.
So you set it up, absolutely. The likelihood that we will
be in a transfer situation is significant for this year, and
without having those accounts replenished that we could draw
from, again, for the borrowing, we are having to put together
drastic plan scenarios that would include de-obligating
contracts and agreements that we already have on the ground
because there is no other place to pull those funds from.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I guess that is a clear warning to
us of the consequences. Hopefully, that is a scenario that we
are not going to see. I am glad that you are planning.
Ms. Christiansen. We are.
Senator Murkowski. But it does hurt to hear that as we are
anticipating yet another ugly and potentially very disastrous
fire season, we have not been able to operate at 100 percent
because of where we are with this fire borrowing situation.
Senator Daines, Senator Udall and I are prepared to wrap
and go over to yet another approps hearing. If you would like
to close it out, you are certainly welcome to do so.
Senator Daines. I have one question for the Chief.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you have now got the gavel too, so
you can have two questions.
Senator Daines. Is that right?
Senator Murkowski. Chief, thank you.
Ms. Christiansen. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chief.
Senator Daines [presiding]. Good. All right. Forest
management is so important for Montana. I need to come back and
ask another question. I ran out of time in the first round.
I really appreciate your 2020's budget focus on reducing
wildland fire risk. I too, like Members of this subcommittee,
want to make sure the Forest Service has all the tools it needs
to make our communities safer.
We have taken some major steps if you look back at the 2014
Farm Bill, the 2018 Omnibus, the 2018 Farm Bill, but like you
stated very clearly in your testimony, there is a lot of work
left to be done.
In fact, a 2007 study from the Pacific Biodiversity
Institute found that 95 percent of human-caused fires started
within one-half mile of a road. It seems very logical to me
that we should prioritize establishing effective fuel breaks
alongside roads, particularly those in or near the wildland
urban interface.
My question is, Do you agree that creating healthy forests
alongside Forest Service roads can help lessen wildfire risks
and protect at-risk communities?
Ms. Christiansen. Yes, Senator. It is all about placing
those strategic fuel breaks, and the data does show that
oftentimes the most strategic place for those fuel breaks,
because of how the land form is and how the fires would burn
but also from where the starts could be, as you said, are along
roads.
In fact, we have entered into a good-neighbor agreement
with the California Department of Transportation so we can work
together on just that.
Senator Daines. Yes, 95 percent is a very compelling
statistic.
Ms. Christiansen. It is.
Senator Daines. My follow-up on that would be, then, would
you work with me to create a new statutory authority that
expedites much needed treatments near roads?
Ms. Christiansen. We would be glad to work with you on
ability to get more strategic work done on the ground. That is
a good way to do that.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chief.
I have the gavel now.
Ms. Christiansen. You have the gavel.
Senator Daines. I do. Now I just got to get the right
script.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So we will be keeping the record open for a week for
questions that need to be placed on the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Forest Service for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Vicki Christiansen
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question 1. The Boundary Waters Canoe Areas Wilderness Act requires
the Forest Service to minimize the environmental impacts to the
Boundary Waters, including impacts to water quality, of mineral
development in the Superior National Forest. And the Forest Service has
clear statutory consent rights in 16 U.S.C. 508(b) for mineral leasing
activities on the Superior National Forest.
1a. How is the Forest Service protecting its statutory
consent rights and living up its obligations under the Boundary
Waters Act?
Answer. The Boundary Waters Act (16 U.S.C. 508(b)) and other
relevant authorities, require the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to receive Forest Service consent prior to the issuance
of any hardrock prospecting permits or leases within the
Superior National Forest. The Agency's position is that, if
consent is granted, the Forest Service may prescribe terms and
conditions or stipulations in the permit or lease for the
protection of surface resources, including resources associated
with the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). Any
such consent, and related stipulations, is provided on a case-
by-case basis, affording site-specific opportunity for surface
resource protection,
For the recently-renewed hardrock leases issued to Twin
Metals Minnesota, the Forest Service prescribed stipulations
for surface resource protection even though the Department of
the Interior had concluded that the lessee was entitled to a
non-discretionary third renewal of the leases. The renewed
leases also provided for joint approval by the BLM and the
Forest Service for any mining plan of operation (MPO) proposed
by the lessee. When an MPO is submitted by the lessee, the
Forest Service will analyze potential impacts to BWCAW
characteristics, including potential impacts to water resources
within the Wilderness, and may prescribe additional
requirements as needed to protect those resources as necessary.
Additionally, the Forest Service stipulations in the renewed
leases expressly reserve the exercise of the Forest Service's
consent concerning any future lease renewal requests, which
includes another opportunity to provide additional Forest
Service stipulations to protect surface resources.
1b. Has BLM engaged the Forest Service on revisions to the
1984 Interagency Agreement between the BLM and Forest Service
for Mineral Leasing, and what are the status of those
revisions?
Answer. Yes. In 2017, the Forest Service and BLM worked to
finalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) specific to Non-
Coal Solid Leasable Minerals that would supersede the 1984
Interagency Agreement for Mineral Leasing. The agencies agreed
at that time to defer further work on the MOU until BLM could
permanently fill its national-level solid leasable minerals
subject matter expert position. The minerals subject matter
expert position has yet to be filled. Consequently, the MOU
remains in draft form awaiting final review and agreement.
Question 2. The fiscal year 2020 budget request also includes a
proposal to fundamentally alter the agency's appropriations programs.
Among other changes, it consolidates all of the administrative, salary
and benefit costs into one appropriation, it moves trails out of
capital improvement, and research is absorbed into land management.
2a. Can you tell us why you as Chief think these changes will
improve the Forest Service's ability to get things done and
provide Congress and the public with better financial
accountability and transparency?
Answer. The proposed budget reform addresses execution
problems with the current budget structure, enables the agency
to strengthen internal controls and ensure it uses appropriated
funds as designated. It infuses transparency within cost types
by clearly defining and segregating fixed cost budget line
items from other programmatic costs. Included in the proposal
is the elimination of cost pools, which significantly increases
transparency while at the same time minimizes the associated
administrative burden and provides a more direct link between
appropriated funds and spending.
The proposed streamlined budget structure would enable the
agency to be more responsive to emergent forest health needs,
reduce administrative burdens, and improve the agency's ability
to prioritize resources strategically. Rather than
appropriating funds to budget line items that have been added
to the Forest Service budget structure over time on an ad hoc
basis, the proposal aligns funding with the land management
goals of the agency and will lead to more efficient achievement
of the agency's mission.
2b. What lessons learned from the Integrated Resource
Restoration proposal, which did not show significant
improvements in achieving the agency's mission despite removing
budgetary stovepipes, were used to inform this new proposal?
Answer. The IRR pilot highlighted benefits, challenges and
best practices that are incorporated into budget reform.
Specifically, budget reform adopts a landscape approach to
include governance/prioritization, transparency of process
improvement, and a continued focus on building a community of
practice to facilitate learning during the transition.
2c. Why will this budget structure reform succeed where
Integrated Resource Restoration failed?
Answer. The IRR Pilot created an opportunity for increased
regional and forest-level collaboration and enhanced strategic
planning and prioritization to achieve landscape outcomes in
specific pilot regions. The budget reform also adopts a
landscape approach that incorporates best practices and lessons
learned from IRR. One of the benefits and big changes from IRR
of the proposed structure is the clear identification of fixed
costs. This allows the agency to better manage fixed costs and
enable greater flexibility to capitalize on opportunities to
leverage partnerships, streamline NEPA analysis, and study
ecological/weather conditions to maximize returns on landscape
management investments. The budget reform approach differs from
the IRR Pilot in that it will be implemented agency-wide and
will affect the entire agency budget structure.
Question 3. We hear from stakeholders that funding for
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects siphons funding
away from other potential activities on a given Forest or in a specific
Region.
3a. How will you both fulfill the 10-year funding commitments
made when the CFLR agreements were signed and tackle additional
priorities that would be wrestling over the same scant
resources?
Answer. Investing CFLR funds can mean there are fewer funds
for work on other landscapes, the focused investment also
attracts partner investments, including over $450 million from
2010 to 2018, and allows more meaningful reduction of forest
health risks. The Forest Service also works to align CFLR
projects with strategic assessments of forest health risks so
the necessary tradeoffs align with our broader strategies for
improving forest conditions.
Question 4. The Interior Department's fiscal year 2020 budget
included a set of legislative proposals providing new categorical
exclusions for active forest management across both Interior and Forest
Service lands.
4a. How involved were you and your staff in developing those
proposals?
Answer. The Forest Service worked with the Department of the
Interior on the development of the legislative proposal. A
legislative proposal is the beginning of our interaction with
Congress to address a particular issue or need. The Forest
Service looks forward to engaging with interested members to
improve our ability to responsibly accomplish more work on the
ground and provide better service on behalf of the American
people.
Question 5. Just last year, in the Fire Fix legislation, we gave
you new authority for a categorical exclusion for hazardous fuels and
wildfire resilience projects, expanded the use of streamlined
environmental review for fire and fuel breaks, extended the term of
stewardship contracts to 20 years where wildfire is a significant risk,
limited opportunities for litigation related to new critical habitat
designations, set up a process to address vegetation management with
utilities in rights of way, and amended the Good Neighbor Authority to
allow the reconstruction of road that are necessary to carry out an
agreement.
5a. What specific steps have you taken to implement the new
authorities we gave you in 2018?
Answer. The 2018 Omnibus Appropriation Act (2018 Act) amended
Section 605 of the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA)
to establish a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for wildfire
resilience projects. As of July 18, 2019, eight projects using
the HFRA Section 605 CE have a signed decision memo. The NEPA
analysis is currently in-progress on 11 projects using the CE.
The Forest Service continues to use this CE as well as the CE
authorized under HFRA Section 603 for authorized hazardous
fuels reduction projects to increase resilience on National
Forest System lands.
The Forest Service has executed over 200 Good Neighbor
Authority (GNA) agreements in 37 States. Under the 2018 Farm
Bill expanded GNA, States have the authority to retain revenue
from GNA projects to be used on other projects on national
forests. Counties and Tribes can also now enter into GNA
agreements. In addition, we have:
-- Implemented new guidance and agreement templates to
encourage the development of new and expanded GNA agreements.
-- Initiated working with counties and Tribes to start new
projects.
-- Implemented new policies and procedures to allow our
cooperators to engage in road maintenance projects under the
new authorities starting in 2018.
-- Begun reviewing existing GNA agreements across the Nation
to identify appropriate places to most successfully apply the
expanded GNA.
The 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act expanded the
stewardship contracting authority, allowing the Forest Service
to develop 20-year stewardship contracts and agreements where
wildfire is of significant risk. The Forest Service currently
has in place the first 20-year stewardship agreement with the
National Wild Turkey Federation while two others are in the
process of being finalized. Every Forest Service region is
actively evaluating the potential for other 20-year stewardship
contracts and agreements, with two others currently under
development. These projects are looking at innovative ways of
increasing treatments of high-risk forests and developing new
economies.
The 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act also granted a new
utilities right of way authority. Under this new authority, in
March 2019, the Southwest Region (R5) approved a master
operation and maintenance plan (OMP), in conjunction with
issuance of a master special use permit, for Pacific Gas and
Electric's and Southern California Edison's electric
transmission and distribution lines on over 2,300 miles of
National Forest System lands in 15 national forests. The OMP
was approved under the newly enacted provisions in the 2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act governing vegetation
management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance
plans for electric transmission and distribution lines.
The Forest Service Washington Office program managers also
prepared briefings and summaries regarding the new authorities,
which were shared with line officers, regions, and field-level
specialists. Field staff are encouraged to use the new
authorities where applicable and efficient. Monitoring flags
were established in our performance tracking systems to
highlight when and where the new authorities are used.
Question 6. Legacy Roads and Trails:
6a. How is the Forest Service continuing to prioritize,
track, and meet goals related to its statutory responsibility
to protect water quality on National Forest lands and address
the impacts on water quality from roads without a dedicated
Legacy Roads and Trails budget line item?
Answer. Although this budget line item was merged into the
agency's Roads budget line item, the Forest Service has not
changed its focus on achieving the outcomes envisioned for the
Legacy Roads and Trails program. The agency continues to use
and develop methods to prioritize and track our statutory
responsibility to protect water quality on the National Forest
System lands. That includes tracking road decommissioning, road
maintenance activities, and road construction. Beginning in
fiscal year 2017, the Forest Service initiated a 5-year
strategic approach to accomplish another 1,000 culverts removed
or replaced for aquatic organism passage (AOP) and flood
resiliency. The agency is on track to exceed that goal by 2021.
6b. What are the fiscal year 2020 targets for the following
activities: road removal, culvert removal, road upgrades and
culvert upgrades?
Answer. In a shift towards more outcome-based performance
metrics, the Forest Service no longer assigns activity-specific
targets for its programs, including those specific to drainage
improvements. The agency does, however, track key metrics for
road improvements and decommissioning on National Forest
Service system, and non-system, roads.
6c. What are the actual accomplishments for those four
activities for the past 5 years by region?
Answer. See tables below.
USDA FOREST SERVICE, ROAD REMOVAL
Accomplishment Report (miles)
Fiscal Year(s) 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand
Region 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern (01)....................................... 0 11 240 530 77 781
Rocky Mountain (02)................................. 3 3 38 23 19 67
Southwestern (03)................................... 0 0 21 6 3 27
Intermountain (04).................................. 0 0 18 14 0 32
Pacific Southwest (05).............................. 0 15 6 19 34 40
Pacific Northwest (06).............................. 37 42 1,132 64 1,588 1,275
Southern (08)....................................... 0 0 12 45 9 57
Eastern (09)........................................ 39 0 39 100 57 178
Alaska (10)......................................... 0 0 19 0 0 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service Total.......................... 79 71 1,524 801 1,786 2,476
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA FOREST SERVICE, ROAD UPGRADE
Accomplishment Report (miles)
Fiscal Year(s) 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand
Region 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern (01)....................................... 10 29 3,416 393 6,611 3,849
Rocky Mountain (02)................................. 41 93 2,402 815 519 3,351
Southwestern (03)................................... 123 15,040 4,441 2,244 259 21,848
Intermountain (04).................................. 0 11 85,620 1,014 131 86,645
Pacific Southwest (05).............................. 0 50,662 2,973 1,381 17,005 55,017
Pacific Northwest (06).............................. 9,691 6,292 7,053 1,211 14,730 24,247
Southern (08)....................................... 3 2 80 438 252 524
Eastern (09)........................................ 133 36 82,116 4,243 723 86,529
Alaska (10)......................................... 19 23,485 227 0 0 23,731
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service Total.......................... 10,022 95,649 188,329 11,739 40,229 305,739
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA FOREST SERVICE, CULVERT REMOVAL
Accomplishment Report (Linear Feet)
Fiscal Year(s) 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand
Region 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern (01)....................................... 0 7 82 16 155 105
Rocky Mountain (02)................................. 7 46 5 26 9 84
Southwestern (03)................................... 0 0 0 1 0 1
Intermountain (04).................................. 0 0 144 21 4 165
Pacific Southwest (05).............................. 0 4 29 10 25 43
Pacific Northwest (06).............................. 135 226 430 103 248 894
Southern (08)....................................... 0 0 92 1 0 93
Eastern (09)........................................ 0 0 26 7 3 33
Alaska (10)......................................... 10 55 300 22 0 387
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service Total.......................... 152 338 1,108 207 444 1,805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA FOREST SERVICE, CULVERT UPGRADE
Accomplishment Report (Linear Feet)
Fiscal Year(s) 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand
Region 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern (01)....................................... 7 145 680 193 303 1,025
Rocky Mountain (02)................................. 48 55 218 222 61 543
Southwestern (03)................................... 0 206 172 45 423 423
Intermountain (04).................................. 274 191 4 4,685 697 5,153
Pacific Southwest (05).............................. 0 9 419 261 341 689
Pacific Northwest (06).............................. 540 672 739 523 390 2,474
Southern (08)....................................... 0 1 126 35 30 162
Eastern (09)........................................ 185 54 328 536 351 1,103
Alaska (10)......................................... 335 325 868 48 2 1,576
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service Total.......................... 1,389 1,658 3,554 6,548 2,598 13,148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 7. Land acquisition, exchanges, and donations are all
important tools for reducing the checkerboard ownership that creates
management problems and heightens fire risks. They are also an
important tool for providing recreational access to places hunters,
anglers, and others want to get to in the backcountry. Therefore, there
are real costs, both a management cost and a social and economic cost
to rural areas, if these programs did not exist. The Forest Legacy
program works similarly, but with State and private lands. The States
nominate working forest lands that should be conserved so that they can
continue being just that, a working forest and an economic driver in
the local community.
7a. When determining to zero out all land acquisition
programs, did your staff do an analysis of what the costs are
for additional fire and watershed management, road maintenance,
fencing, and other requirements for private inholdings across
the system if these programs did not exist?
Answer. The administration is focused on caring for the lands
the Forest Service currently owns. The Forest Service budget
seeks to directly address the millions of acres at risk for
wildfire by requesting $450 million for hazardous fuels
reduction, and addressing the Forest Service's $5 billion
infrastructure maintenance backlog by retaining a portion of
mineral receipts from the proposed Public Lands Infrastructure
Fund legislation.
7b. Without Forest Legacy, how do you propose to assist the
States in preventing the fragmentation of environmentally
significant forests?
Answer. The Working Forest Lands Program (formerly the Forest
Stewardship Program) works in partnership with State forestry
agencies to connect private landowners with the information and
tools they need to actively manage their forests. Actively
managed forests provide timber, fuel wood, wildlife habitat,
watershed protection, and recreational opportunities; and help
create jobs in rural communities by sustaining local markets
for forest products.
7c. Isn't this program an important part of a Shared
Stewardship vision for our forested lands?
Answer. Promoting well managed forests across all ownerships
is an important part of the agency's Shared Stewardship vision.
The agency is currently working with States to undertake a
comprehensive review and update of their State Forest Action
Plans. State Forest Action Plans offer long-term plans for
investing State, Federal, and other resources where they can be
most effective in achieving national conservation goals.
Question 8. In 2017, Secretary Zinke undertook a review of National
Monuments, and coordinated with Secretary Purdue on those monuments
under Forest Service jurisdiction. This resulted in a removal of Forest
Service lands from the Bears Ears designation, despite reports that
USDA did not recommend any Forest Service acreage for removal.
8a. Since the President's Bears Ears proclamation, has the
Forest Service engaged with the Office of the Secretary or with
the Department of the Interior on additional changes to any
monuments?
Answer. No. Since the President's December 2017 Proclamation
pertaining to Bears Ears National Monument, the Forest Service
has not engaged with the Office of the Secretary or with the
Department of the Interior on additional changes to any
monuments.
Question 9. The Interior Department implemented a new regional
structure last year and is proposing to relocate staff out of the
Capital Region and other longtime regional offices, and USDA is
proposing to move facilities out of the Capital Region as well.
9a. Has the Forest Service been tasked with or engaged in any
similar relocation or reorganization discussions, or any review
of its Washington Office, regional structure or office
locations?
Answer. The Forest Service has not been tasked with or
engaged in any similar relocations or reorganization
discussions, or any review of its Washington Office, regional
structure or office locations.
9b. If so, what funds in the fiscal year 2020 Budget are
associated with that activity?
Answer. The Forest Service does not have any funding in the
fiscal year 2020 Budget associated with this activity.
Question 10. The Forest Service is currently reviewing State
requests for exceptions to the Roadless Rule. I have heard from Tribal
governments that government-to-government consultations have been
lacking in the current process. Additionally, the proclamation
eliminating portions of the Bears Ears National Monument cited existing
protections, such as Inventoried Roadless Areas, as justification for
removing those areas from monument status. The State of Utah's request
for a State-specific Roadless Rule includes removal of those same
Roadless Area protections.
10a. When and how will you engage with Tribal governments
before releasing a draft environmental impact statement? Will
that engagement include subsistence hearings?
Answer. Only one petition for a State-specific roadless rule
is under consideration by the Forest Service. This petition is
for the State of Alaska, where subsistence is a central issue.
Government-to-government consultation is ongoing with Alaska
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations as part of the rulemaking
process. This includes upcoming meetings with Agency and
Department officials.
10b. How will you ensure consistency with the
administration's support for these Roadless protections as you
consider the State of Utah's petition?
Answer. The Forest Service has not initiated rulemaking for a
Utah-specific roadless rule.
10c. Given the statistical likelihood of human-caused fires
starting near roads, will exceptions to the Roadless Rule
increase the risk of wildfire ignitions in those areas, and are
those risks being analyzed in the agency's review of the
States' requests?
Answer. The issue of human-caused fires starting near roads
was raised in the context of the petition for roadless rule for
Utah. However, Forest Service has not initiated rulemaking for
a Utah-specific roadless rule. The State's petition for
rulemaking is currently under review. The State of Utah and the
Forest Service are addressing the threat of unwanted fire to
communities and watersheds through the Shared Stewardship
agreement.
Question 11. Shared Stewardship:
11a. How are you ensuring that Tribes, local communities,
collaborative groups and other stakeholders, in addition to
States, are involved in the decisions being made through Shared
Stewardship agreements?
Answer. At the regional, State and national levels the Forest
Service has engaged with Tribes, local communities,
collaborative groups and other stakeholders, together with the
State, and separately, in the context of Shared Stewardship.
We have engaged with the Rural Voices of Conservation
Coalition to study how, and provide guidance to, local
collaborative groups engaging in shared stewardship and the
decisions that are made in that context. National roundtable
discussions have and continue to occur with stakeholders.
Forest Service field units continue to engage stakeholders,
partners, Tribes, local communities, and others at the level of
interest on projects and programs that contribute to achieving
the vision of shared stewardship. To date, Shared Stewardship
agreements have been between the States and the Forest Service.
However, the agency is planning some expected future agreements
are (either: being planned or being developed) with other
partners as signatories, such as USDA's Natural Resource
Conservation Service and potentially Tribes/Tribal
organizations.
These agreements will use all available tools and authorities
to achieve mutually desired results and outcomes. New
authorities provide us opportunities to involve others in the
``implementation'' of Shared Stewardship priorities.
The Forest Service is building a ``Guidelines for
Implementing the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA)'' document that
answers questions posed to the Forest Service by States,
counties and Tribes as to how the new GNA authorities will be
implemented. Along with the Guidelines, plans are in place to
hold webinars to discuss the new authorities with our external
partners in August.
The Forest Service is actively engaged in full partnership
with the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), a national
consortium of Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and
individuals to implement tribally-relevant authorities in the
Forestry title of the 2018 Farm Bill and other legislation. The
agency has executed a challenge cost-share agreement with ITC
to provide subject-matter expertise on Tribal forest
management, as well as to help the Forest Service understand
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
Public Law 93-638 authority, as amended, which is new to the
agency. In addition to this close partnership, the Forest
Service has also undertaken substantial outreach to inform
Indian Country of new authorities and to develop new or amended
policy in partnership and consultation with Tribes. On May 15,
2019, the Forest Service hosted a national Farm Bill Listening
Session to familiarize Tribes and Forest Service employees with
new Farm Bill provisions that impact Tribes and to hear their
questions and ideas for implementation. The agency also
consulted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the
Bureau of Land Management at interagency coordination meetings
and coordinated with the BIA on a national Tribal consultation,
related to the Tribal Forest Protection Act (Public Law 115-
325). The Forest Service also participated in meetings of large
regional and national Tribal organizations, including the
National Congress of American Indians, Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians, the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society,
as well as the USDA Secretary's Farm Bill Consultation.
The Forest Service has also coordinated with counties in the
development of the Good Neighbor templates and is working on
implementation of Good Neighbor Projects with several counties.
11b. How will the administration fulfill its commitment to
working more closely with States in the Secretary's Shared
Stewardship Initiative and assisting them with their forest
action plans without the Landscape Scale Restoration Program,
which funds the top national priorities in States' forest
action plans?
Answer. The Forest Service has and will continue to supply
States with data used to inform State Action Plans, regardless
of the status of the Landscape Scale Restoration Program. The
agency will also support States through the Working Forest
Lands program.
11c. What funding within this Budget that correspond with the
desired outcomes of the Shared Stewardship Executive Order?
Answer. Shared Stewardship agreements do not rigidly define
funding commitments. Shared Stewardship projects will be funded
from diverse programs and appropriate budget line items,
including partner funding.
11d. What are the criteria being used to evaluate the
performance of Shared Stewardship agreements and how will
performance indicators help guide prioritization,
implementation, and evaluation?
Answer. The Forest Service tracks performance measures that
reflect some key outputs of active management, such as
hazardous fuels treatments and post-fire rehabilitation of
land. Currently, there are eight Shared Stewardship agreements
with: the Western Governors Association; and the States of
Idaho, Utah, Washington, Montana, Oregon, Arkansas, and North
Carolina. Key outputs will be analyzed at multiple levels
within the agency to inform decisions on where to focus efforts
and funding.
Question 12. State and Volunteer Fire Assistance are proposed for
cuts of 12 and 21 percent respectively.
12a. Can you elaborate on the impacts of those cuts--do you
know how many fewer fire engines or equipment our State and
local partners will be able to purchase and outfit?
Answer. The administration is focused on caring for the lands
the Forest Service currently owns. The Forest Service budget
seeks to fully support our Federal firefighting capacity,
directly address the millions of acres at risk for wildfire and
the Forest Service's $5 billion infrastructure maintenance
backlog. For the National Fire Capacity (previously State Fire
Assistance) program, a 12 percent reduction in funding would in
States being able to purchase approximately 65 fewer fire
engines or 25 bulldozers and transport units. For the Rural
Fire Capacity (previously Volunteer Fire Assistance) program, a
21 percent reduction in funding would result in approximately
700 fewer grants being provided to volunteer fire departments.
12b. Won't fewer dollars for States and the volunteer fire
departments with which you have mutual aid agreements put all
private and public lands, including National Forests, at
greater risk?
Answer. Reduced funding for the National and Rural Fire
Capacity Programs would impact maintaining fire response
capabilities of State and local firefighting resources at the
local, State and national levels.
In addition to initial responses, funding from these two
programs supports hazardous fuels reduction treatments and fire
prevention education. Under the strategy of Shared Stewardship,
State forestry agencies and many local departments support
hazardous fuels reduction activities such as prescribed fire.
These activities reduce risk to communities through treatments
on State, local, and Federal lands.
Question 13. Community and urban trees can be considered critical
infrastructure for both rural communities and cities and State
Foresters utilize the Community and Urban Forestry Program to make
communities more livable, healthier, energy efficient and vibrant by
funding seed money for the planning, planting, and long-term care of
trees.
13a. How does the elimination of funding for this program in
the President's budget advance the administration's goals of
building infrastructure and assisting States and under-served
communities?
Answer. The Forest Service has a number of State and Private
Forestry programs that serve forests adjacent to rural
communities and cities. Providing technical and financial
assistance through our Working Forest Lands (previously Forest
Stewardship) program will continue to improve and enhance
benefits from privately owned forests to adjacent communities.
In fiscal year 2020, the administration is focused on caring
for the lands the Forest Service currently owns, especially
supporting forest management and wildland fire risk reduction.
13b. What outreach is the Forest Service doing to States to
determine the impact of these proposed funding cuts on
implementing State forest conservation plans?
Answer. National Association of State Foresters (NASF)
leadership and Forest Service leadership meet quarterly in a
forum known as the State and Private Forestry Board to discuss
potential Federal funding impacts to States. The Urban and
Community Forestry (UCF) program National Program Leader and
staff communicate quarterly with the Chair of the NASF UCF
Committee regarding State delivery of the UCF Program and
priorities outlined in each State's forest conservation plans.
Forest Service Regional UCF Program Managers communicate at
least monthly with State forestry UCF Program Coordinators to
gauge funding impact at the local community level and report
back to National UCF Director and staff.
Question 14. Workplace Misconduct:
14a. What actions have been taken by Forest Service
leadership in response to the February 14, 2019 ``Forest
Service Initiatives to Address Workplace Misconduct'' USDA
Office of Inspector General Report?
Answer. The Forest Service has adopted all the
recommendations made in the USDA Office of Inspector General's
report of Forest Service Initiatives to Address Workplace
Misconduct. Some of the initiatives adopted include:
-- Require all 9,000 hiring managers to complete ``Hiring
Matters'' training, a training that identifies best management
practices for evaluating candidates.
-- Require hiring managers to conduct reference checks prior
to making all hiring decisions.
-- Incorporate a new performance metric on the work
environment for all supervisors to assess efforts by current
managers and supervisors to create and maintain a safe,
respectful, and resilient work environment.
14b. Have all of the recommendations in the report been fully
implemented? Please identify any recommendations that have not
been fully implemented and the status of implementation. If
there are any recommendations or aspects of the recommendations
that the agency does not intend to implement, please provide an
explanation of why those recommendations will not be
implemented.
Answer. All recommendations have been fully implemented.
14c. Are there additional actions the Forest Service is
taking to improve the workplace that were not recommended by
the Inspector General?
Answer. In addition to the recommendations made by the
Inspector General, the Forest Service has implemented the
following actions:
Alcohol is often a contributing factor in cases of assault,
sexual assault, harassment, and other inappropriate behaviors.
For the safety of employees, the agency banned the possession
and consumption of alcohol in shared government-furnished
quarters. The agency-wide alcohol ban was issued in July of
2019. Violation of this policy may result in the termination of
the Housing Assignment Agreement.
In the summer of 2019, Forest Service permanent, temporary,
and term employees were invited to participate in a survey
designed to assess work satisfaction, perceptions of the work
environment, and workplace experiences. Results of the survey
will be used as a baseline to track progress toward improving
the agency's culture.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question 1. The Supervisor's Office and visitor center for the
Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest (GMFL) in Vermont and
New York occupies leased space in downtown Rutland, Vermont. The
location is not on National Forest land, lease costs are high, it is
only a short term, and the building is for sale. The US Forest Service
has selected the site for a new Supervisor's office that is centrally
located on the Forest Service-owned land, fronting on a State highway,
with high visibility and good access. The Forest Service has invested
in full site assessments and preliminary designs. This site is easily
developed with good potential for interpretive trails and is close to
the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Vermont Long Trail. It is
my understanding that this project is ready to move quickly to
construction. It is a real possibility that without a Supervisor's
Office in Federal ownership available within the next few years the
General Services Administration (GSA) will require for the Supervisor's
office to be moved into federally owned excess space within an older
downtown U.S. Post Office building in Rutland. This has been previously
proposed by GSA.
1a. Where does the Supervisor's Office rank among capital
improvement program and construction priorities for Region 9 of
the National Forest system in fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year
2020?
Answer. The Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests
Supervisor's Office project was the 10th project listed in the
fiscal year 2020 Regional Capital Improvement assessment.
Region 9 of the National Forest System requested no project
funding in fiscal year 2019 for the Supervisor's Office
project.
1b. Does the Forest Service plan to move forward to complete
the design and construction on the GMFL Supervisor's Office in
fiscal year 2020? If not, why not?
Answer. No. The Forest Service will focus Capital Investment
Program funding on critical maintenance rather than increasing
the number of agency-owned facilities.
1c. Do you believe that the U.S. Forest Service will be best
able to deliver its mission for my Vermont constituents and
others operating out of its own facility, on the Forest, with
outdoor amenities, or from excess space in a downtown Post
Office building?
Answer. The Forest Service will be better suited for the
Supervisor's Office to operate out of a different facility than
the old Post Office building. The downtown Post Office provides
little space or access that will suffice for public engagement
for permits, visitor information, etc. In addition, there is
insufficient space to support all of the necessary equipment
that is being used at the current Supervisor's Office. In the
case of the Green Mountain National Forest Supervisor's Office,
the Eastern Region recommends that a new leased facility other
than the Post Office building would most effectively deliver
the agency's mission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
Question 1. Chief Christiansen, Montana is home to an abundance of
outdoor recreation, which contributes to our $7 billion outdoor
economy. Unfortunately, lengthy, burdensome, and overly complicated
NEPA policies delay permitting and hurt our small businesses that rely
on USFS lands. It is my understanding that the Trump administration and
USDA are working to streamline NEPA for special use permits, however, I
have heard concerns that in our Montana National Forests we are not
seeing the benefit from these policy changes. Instead NEPA policies and
regulations have become so burdensome that our winter recreation sites
are suffering and therefore unable to provide their guests with the
same quality of service.
1a. Can you commit to me to work with our winter recreation
businesses in Montana to streamline special use permits on our
National Forests so they can continue to provide services to
recreationists and contribute to Montana's outdoor economy?
Answer. The Forest Service will gladly work with outdoor
recreation businesses in Montana to improve the process for
issuing special use authorizations for use and occupancy of
national forests in Montana, consistent with our laws,
regulations, and policies.
We are working to simplify the permitting process and
implementing online permitting for outfitters, guides, and
other small businesses. Developed in fiscal year 2018, and
piloted in fiscal year 2019, online permitting will enhance
customer service from the Forest Service and increase economic
benefits to communities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question 1. Florida and Georgia combined suffered about $2 billion
in timber losses as a result of Hurricane Michael. These losses have
threatened the survival of some of the biggest timber producers and
lumber yards, who happen to be important employers in an economically
underdeveloped area of my State. But worse than that, it has devastated
families and retirees, who invested in their own small timber plots to
support their future goals and dreams. Immediately after the storm, the
focus was timber salvage and debris clearing operations. But now, we
need to develop medium and long range plans to re-grow the industry,
and the economic opportunities it provided to the people living in
these communities. And we need to remain vigilant over the enhanced
threat of wildfire and insect pest and disease outbreaks. With so much
timber lost, it is important for mills in the area, and all the support
services that depend on mill activity, to have a long-term annual
supply commitment from the nearby Apalachicola National Forest for the
next 20 plus years until private landowners impacted by the hurricane
can re-establish the area's timber base. I appreciate the work USFS has
done to date on this issue.
1a. In order for this hard hit area to move forward, is the
Forest Service ready to make a long-term annual supply
commitment from the Apalachicola National Forest to reeling
Panhandle timber mills and associated industries?
Answer. The Forest Service recognizes the impact Hurricane
Michael has had in the panhandle area, including the
Apalachicola National Forest (ANF). Some of the most productive
areas on the forest were affected. Other areas present harvest
location challenges due to damaged roads, high water, and
saturated soil conditions. The National Forests of Florida
(NFF), is working with the local communities and partners to
offer a predictable and sustainable supply of wood products.
The NFF will continue to explore opportunities to work with and
support local industry. The NFF is committed to maximizing the
timber sale volume offered annually within the range allowed by
environmental and market factors
1b. If so, how do you plan on implementing such a commitment,
and what is the timeframe for implementation?
Answer. The Apalachicola National Forest, working with the
State of Florida through the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA),
offered timber sales beginning in November of 2018. To date,
seven timber sales have been offered, and the forest continues
to prepare additional timber sales. The forest is currently
contracting for facilities and infrastructure repair to recover
from Hurricane Michael, more than 300 miles of roads on the ANF
that could be used for future timber harvest work.
1c. Are there any specific regulations that can be modified
in order to appropriately balance important environmental
protections with the economic development needs of the
surrounding community?
Answer. The current laws and regulations appropriately
balance environmental protections and economic development.
1d. How important are Good Neighbor Authority agreements
between the Federal Government and the States to achieving the
goals and objectives of the Forest Service?
Answer. It is very important to the agency that the GNA
program is successful. Without the States, counties, and Tribes
it would be very difficult for the agency to meet its
restoration goals to restore healthy forests across the Nation.
Not only will the cooperators be able to assist in restoring
healthy forests, the agency sees this as an opportunity to
increase timber production from the national forests which will
in turn benefit the local communities. A good example is on the
Apalachicola National Forest where the partnership between all
the local governments will allow for expanded and organized
responses to this emergency and others that may come.
1e. Are there additional authorities related to Good Neighbor
Agreements that could be modified or expanded to better
encourage these useful Federal-State partnerships?
Answer. There are exciting new ways the agency can increase
the amount of restoration activity that is being implemented
under the new GNA authorities, authorized in the 2018 Omnibus
Act and the 2018 Farm Bill. The Forest Service is using the
authorities provided, which are adequate for now, but the
agency believes it is necessary to consider whether counties
and Tribes should have the same authority as States to retain
the revenues generated from GNA timber sales and use them on
other Good Neighbor projects . These expansions could increase
the activities being implemented under GNA.
Question 2. I have heard concerns that the proposed funding level
for the State and Private Forestry programs in the disaster
supplemental bill that failed last month was inadequate at just $12
million to support States in their efforts to promote forestry recovery
after the impacts of both Hurricane Michael and Florence. The National
Association of State Foresters and Florida's State Forester, Jim
Karels, believe the true need is closer to $47 million.
2a. If $12 million accurately represents the Forest Service's
request to Congress, how did you derive that figure?
Answer. Please see the chart below in response to question
2b.
2b. If that figure doesn't represent the Forest Service's
request, what is the true need for supplemental funding for the
State and Private Forestry programs so we can get it right in
the new draft?
Answer. Additional supplemental appropriations for disaster
relief were enacted on June 6, 2019 (Public Law 116-20), which
provided $12 million in State and Private Forestry funds for
necessary expenses related to Hurricane's Florence and Michael.
The Forest Service plans to aid the affected States in the
Southern region as follows:
PUBLIC LAW 116-20--SOUTHERN REGION DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Planned Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPF
Forest Health, Cooperative Lands.............. $400,891
Forest Stewardship............................ $1,496,659
Community Forestry............................ $828,508
Fire Protection Programs...................... $9,273,942
---------------------
Total, SPF................................ $12,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Daines. And with that, we will conclude this
hearing.
Ms. Christiansen. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., Wednesday, May 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]