U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–124 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–391 

FOREST SERVICE BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2011 FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 8 

Tidwell, Chief, Tom, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................ 1 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 31 

(1) 

FOREST SERVICE BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, 

chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess we should go ahead and start. 

I’m informed that Senator Murkowski will be here in a few minutes, but had to have some conversations on the floor before coming 

back to the—coming to the hearing. 

So, let me make a short statement, and then I’ll call on Chief 

Tidwell to give his statement, and then we’ll interrupt things for 

Senator Murkowski’s statement when she arrives. 

This hearing is to consider the President’s proposal for the Forest 

Service’s fiscal year 2011 budget. 

First, we’d like to welcome Chief Tidwell back to the committee. 

Appreciate his willingness to testify today, and apologize for the 

delay that’s caused by the Senate’s votes. 

Keeping in mind that the budget’s tight and that this proposal 

includes an overall decrease in the Forest Service budget, in other 

respects I believe this is a strong proposal, and there is much to 

like about what is proposed. It includes significant improvements 

in funding for wildfire activities; a significant proposal to integrate 

funding to focus on forest and watershed restoration; a new Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization Initiative. I also commend 

the administration for its proposal to fully fund the Forest Landscape Restoration Act, and for its interest in an open dialog with 

members of this committee to further develop the new proposals 

that are included in the budget. 

I will have several question after we hear from Chief Tidwell, but 

why don’t you go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Today, with me, I have Kathleen Atkinson, our budget director 

with me, that—if we need to get into some of the budget details, 

she’s here to assist with that. 
2 

Mr. Chairman, you know, it’s a privilege to be here today to discuss the President’s budget for the Forest Service. You know, I appreciate the support this committee has shown the Forest Service 

in the past, and I look forward to working with the committee to 

provide more of the things that Americans need and want from 

their Nation’s forests and grasslands. 

The President’s budget request is designed to support the administration’s priorities, Secretary Vilsack’s priorities, for maintaining 

and increasing the resiliency of America’s forests. The budget supports these priorities through five key objectives: 

The first one, is to restore and sustain the forest and grasslands 

by increasing collaborative efforts to build support for the restoration activities that we need to accomplish on the landscape. The 

budget requests full funding, $40 million, for the collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. It also proposes an integrated resource restoration budget line item, that would really help us—will 

facilitate taking integrated approach to developing project proposals that will optimize multiple benefits. 

Second, it increases the emphasis on protecting and enhancing water resources and watershed health, with a request of $50 million for a new Priority Watershed and Job Stabilization Initiative. 

This would be a pilot program, where we would fund large-scale 

projects that focus on watershed restoration and job creation, and 

will be developed in a collaborative manner. We would use the 

Statewide assessments, where available, and our own watershed 

assessments, look at the number of jobs that would be created and 

the opportunity for biomass utilization as some of the selection criteria for this pilot program. 

The third objective is that we will manage landscapes to be more 

resilient to the stresses of climate change. We’ll do that by applying 

the science that’s developed by Forest Service research to increase 

the adaptive capacity of ecosystems. We’ll also use that science to 

determine how our management needs to change to be able to increase the ecosystem’s resistance to the increasing frequency of disturbance events, like fire, insect and disease outbreaks, invasives, 

flood, and drought. 

The fourth key objective is, this budget request provides for full 

funding for wildland fire suppression, and that includes a preparedness level to continue our success to be able to suppress 98 

percent of wildland fires during initial attack. It also proposes a realignment of preparedness and suppression funds that more accurately display the true costs of our preparedness. It provides for a 

FLAME fund to increase the accountability and transparency for 

the cost of large fires. It also provides for a contingency reserve 

fund that will significantly reduce the need to transfer funds from 

critical—from other critical programs to fund fire suppression if we 

do have a very large, active fire season. Then it also increases the 

emphasis of hazardous field projects to reduce the threat of wildfire 

to homes and communities by doing more this work in the 

wildland-urban interface. 

The last key objective is to focus on creating jobs and increasing 

economic opportunities in rural communities. We will do this with 

our proposed Priority Watershed and Job Initiative, doing more of 

our work through stewardship contracting, building off the Amer-
3 

ican Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects that encourage biomass utilization; continue to work with the States to use our State 

and private forestry programs to address conservation across all 

lands; and through job development with our 28 job corps centers, 

and our partnership with the Department of Labor, and our partnership with Youth Conservation Corps across this country. 

Our goal is to increase the collaborative efforts to build support 

for science-based landscape-scale conservation, taking an all-lands 

approach to conservation to build a restoration economy which will 

provide jobs and economic opportunity for communities across this 

Nation. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee, 

and I look forward answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here today 

to discuss the President’s Budget request for the Forest Service in fiscal year (FY) 

2011. I appreciate the support this committee has shown the Forest Service in the 

past, and I look forward to collaborating in the future to provide more of the things 

the American people want and need from our Nation’s forests and grasslands. I am 

confident that this budget will enable the Forest Service to do just that. 

Our Nation’s forests and grasslands, both public and private, are social, economic, 

and environmental assets. They provide many ecosystem services on which society 

relies, including clean water, scenic beauty, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife 

habitat, natural resource jobs, forest products, renewable energy, carbon sequestration, and more. In pursuit of these and other services, the Forest Service manages 

193 million acres on 155 national forests and 20 grasslands. In addition, to help improve stewardship of lands outside the National Forest System, the agency partners 

with and provides technical assistance to a range of other Federal agencies as well 

as State, local, and Tribal governments, private landowners, and nonprofit organizations. The agency also engages in cutting-edge research on climate change, wildfires, 

forest pests and diseases, ecological restoration, and a range of other conservation 

issues. 

The Budget reflects the President’s priorities and Secretary of Agriculture Tom 

Vilsack’s vision for restoring and enhancing the resilience and productivity of America’s forests. In accordance with our mission of sustaining the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands, the Forest Service is taking an 

all-lands approach, working across boundaries and ownerships to address the critical issues facing our Nation’s forest and grassland ecosystems on a landscape scale. 

Further, the budget proposes to integrate Forest Service programs in a new way 

that will better position the agency to tackle long-standing and urgent forest health, 

wildlife, forest restoration, and community vitality needs. 

The President’s Budget request for the Forest Service for FY11 totals $5.38 billion 

in discretionary appropriations, a $61 million increase over the FY10 enacted level. 

The Budget reflects a new and significant shift in the way the agency will address 

forest management on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The President’s Budget 

focuses Forest Service resources to support more watershed and ecosystem improvement efforts based upon a variety of management actions, including mechanical removal of timber, road decommissioning, and wildlife habitat improvement. The 

Budget adopts an ecosystem-based approach to forest management that focuses on 

enhancing forest and watershed resiliency, preventing the loss of large carbon sinks, 

and maintaining jobs. To address the need to protect forest resources and wildlife 

habitat in an era of global climate change, the Budget establishes a pilot program 

for long-term, landscape scale restoration activities that emphasize resiliency, 

health, and sustainable economic development. 

Ecological Restoration 

In FY 2011, the Forest Service will work to meet the challenge of restoring 

healthy, resilient ecosystems capable of delivering the ecosystem services that 

Americans depend upon, especially clean and abundant water. The Administration 

proposes restructuring the Forest Service budget as a key step that will allow us 
4 

to focus more on high priority restoration work. The new budget line item, Integrated Resource Restoration, will combine the Forest Products, Vegetation and Watershed Management, and Wildlife and Fisheries Management budget line items. 

The FY 2011 budget proposes $694 million for Integrated Resource Restoration work 

under this line item. 

We believe this new line item better reflects much of the current work we do and, 

even more importantly, better forecasts the future direction we need to take to 

achieve ecological restoration work. The agency will integrate traditional timber activities predominately within the context of larger restoration objectives, focusing on 

priority watersheds in most need of stewardship and restoration work, pursuing forest products when they support watershed, wildlife, and restoration goals. We will 

also greatly expand the use of the stewardship contracting authority to meet restoration objectives and build in longer-term contracting certainty for communities 

and the private sector to invest in the kind of forest restoration infrastructure we 

will need to achieve these objectives. 

The new budget line item consists of three activities: $604 million for Restoration 

and Management of Ecosystems, $40 million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act (CFLRA), and $50 million for Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization. Projects under the second two will be selected through a national competitive process and are discussed below. The $604 million for Restoration and Management of Ecosystems will be allocated in part based on the number of smaller watersheds (6th level hydrological unit codes, which average 10,000 acres) in critical 

need of restoration, while a substantial portion of the funds will be used to fund 

restoration activities across the National Forest System. This will allow National 

Forests to focus local projects on improving watershed condition while continuing to 

carryout critical, ongoing ecological restoration work. While we have not worked out 

the specifics for allocating these funds, I am convinced that this multi-pronged approach will improve our ability to achieve restoration and watershed improvement 

at various scales—from landscape level work under the nationally selected projects 

under CFLRA and the Priority Watersheds initiatives to work within individual 

NFS watersheds in need of critical restoration—while allowing the Forest Service 

to place greater focus on improving watersheds without forgoing critical ongoing restoration efforts. We look forward to working with the committee as we explore the 

best way to allocate these funds. 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund 

The FY11 President’s Budget requests $40 million to fund ecosystem restoration 

under the Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2009, the maximum amount authorized under the Act. Restoration treatments will focus on reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, improving watershed conditions, and building resilience to climate 

change on large landscapes greater than 50,000 acres. Through the Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration Program, the Forest Service will use federal funding 

to leverage local resources, engaging partners in collaborative restoration efforts on 

a landscape scale. Potential projects will be developed and proposed through multistakeholder collaborative planning, and will be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture, as advised by a Federal Advisory Committee. Proposals must have a substantially complete restoration strategy, be primarily composed of National Forest 

System land, and be on lands accessible by wood-processing infrastructure. The $50 

million priority watersheds initiative and the CFLRF will provide perfect complement to each other within the Integrated Resource Restoration line item, enabling the agency to target management to the diversity of landscape, forest, and 

community needs. In FY11, the Forest Service would fund 10 projects at $4 million 

each through CFLRF. No more than two proposals will be selected for funding in 

any one Region of the NFS. 

Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization 

Perhaps the most important service that Americans get from wildland ecosystems 

has to do with a basic human need: water. Nearly 53 percent of the Nation’s freshwater supply originates on public and private forest lands, and more than 200 million people rely for their daily drinking water on forests and grasslands. Watersheds 

in good health provide good water quality, and watersheds that deliver plentiful 

supplies of pure, clean water also deliver a full range of other services that people 

need-soil protection, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and more. 

In FY 2011, the Forest Service proposes to invest $50 million under the new Integrated Resource Restoration program in Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization. 

Under this initiative, the agency will assess the health of all of its watersheds, carry 

out forest restoration in national priority watersheds, and then focus on job creation 
5 

1 Backlund, P.; Janetos, A; Schimel, D., lead authors. 2008. The effects of climate change on 

agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. Final report, 

synthesis and assessment product 4.3 A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC. 342 p. 

by utilizing stewardship contracts and putting youth to work in rural areas. This 

initiative complements the work to be accomplished under the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLRF). These watersheds will be identified and 

prioritized using State Forest Assessments, watershed conditions, costs and input 

from local communities. Projects will be selected in areas greater than 10,000 acres. 

Through this process, the Forest Service will work collaboratively to maintain or improve water quality and watershed function, improve habitat for fish and wildlife, 

and create local jobs in forest-based communities. 

Attached to the end of this statement is a list of the 12 indicators that we plan 

on using to assess the health of our watersheds under this initiative. Fire regime 

condition class and percent vegetative cover are two examples. These Watershed 

Condition Indicators are diagnostic indicators of the health and trend of various biological, chemical, and physical components of aquatic systems and associated terrestrial uplands. The indicators represent the processes or mechanisms by which management actions can potentially affect watersheds, the species which inhabit them, 

and their riparian functions and ecological processes. 

This initiative will yield the following results by the end of FY 2011. 

• Funding for projects that will improve the watershed condition class of approximately 100 NFS watersheds that are important to the public. • Approximately 20 ten-year stewardship contracts offered in targeted areas 

around the Country that would provide a steady supply of forest products. • Over 1,000 jobs created, including a focus on jobs for youth in rural areas. • A map depicting the condition of the National Forest System’s approximately 

12,000 highest priority watersheds at the start of FY 2011. • A map depicting the locations and approximate quantities of the biomass that 

NFS intends to make available over the next ten years. • Experience with an alternative to litigation through the piloting of a new Appeals process. 

Responding to Climate Change 

Broad scientific consensus confirms that global climate change is real and that the 

impacts are altering forests and grasslands, increasing the frequency of disturbance 

events and diminishing the ecosystem services they provide. Some of the most urgent forest and grassland management problems of the past 20 years-wildfires, 

changing water regimes, and expanding forest insect infestations-have been driven, 

in part, by a changing climate; future impacts are likely to be even more severe.1

Because America’s forests and grasslands are vital to our nation, the Forest Service 

program of work in FY11 will focus on making ecosystems more resistant to climaterelated stresses and more resilient to changing conditions. Helping ecosystems 

adapt to both current and future climates will ensure that they continue to provide 

the ecosystem services that Americans want and need, including sequestration of 

the heat-trapping gases that are the main cause of global warming. 

The President’s Budget will go a long way in supporting and reinforcing the importance of managing forests and grasslands to respond and adapt to changing climate. Our new Integrated Resource Restoration line item is built partially around 

the notion that we need to adapt to climate change and will provide an outlet for 

implementation of forest level climate action plans. Further, I’d like to draw your 

attention to a very small but significant $2 million investment in Urban and Community forests that will result in significant and direct climate benefits by planting 

trees in the right places in our communities to help sequester carbon and reduce 

heating and cooling costs. This cost-share program will make use of a prioritization 

system to maximize the tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per federal 

dollar spent. 

Fuels and Forest Health Treatments 

During the average fire season from 2000 to 2009, about 1.3 million acres under 

Forest Service protection have burned. Communities expanding into the wildland/ 

urban interface (WUI) are compounding the challenges of suppressing wildfire and 

highlighting the need to focus treatments in the WUI. The Forest Service has a 

major role to play in reducing the threat of wildfire to homes and communities by 

reducing hazardous fuels and restoring forest and grassland health. 

In FY11, the Forest Service will direct $349 million to reducing hazardous fuels, 

treating 1.6 million acres in the WUI. The agency will focus areas for treatment in 
6 

partnership with communities using their community wildfire protection plans 

(CWPP), resulting in a doubling of the acres to be treated in areas identified in 

CWPPs over what is planned for FY 2010. This intense focus on the WUI is part 

of the initiative to responsibly budget for fires. Fires in the interface present the 

greatest risk to communities and firefighters, are the most expensive, and are the 

most complex to suppress. By treating high-priority areas in the WUI, the Forest 

Service will reduce the threat of large wildfires and increase the effectiveness of 

suppression actions, thereby protecting communities, reducing risks to firefighters 

and the public, and lowering the costs of large wildfires. 

Fire Suppression and Preparedness 

The FY11 President’s Budget request continues to reflect the Presidential urgency 

to responsibly budget for wildfire. It provides $2.4 billion for managing wildland 

fire, including a more accurate accounting of preparedness costs while continuing 

full funding of the 10-year average for suppression costs. To enhance accountability 

for fire suppression, the budget proposes managing fire suppression by establishing 

three separate accounts. All fire suppression costs would be paid out of the fire suppression account, initially funded at $595 million. This level would cover the costs 

of initial and smaller extended attack operations consistent with our target of maintaining a 98 percent success rate. In addition, the budget requests $291 million for 

the FLAME account. Funds from this account would be available for larger, more 

complex fires that escape initial attack. The budget outlines a new approach to risk 

management and fire spending accountability, including the process for FLAME 

funds availability, requiring a formal risk decision by the Secretary of Agriculture 

before funds can be transferred from FLAME into the suppression account. 

In addition to fully covering the anticipated suppression costs, $282 million is proposed for a Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve. These funds would be 

available if the Nation experiences an exceptional fire season and the Forest Service 

anticipates exhausting the amounts appropriated for both the suppression and 

FLAME funds. The Presidential Contingency account reduces the risk that the Forest Service would need to borrow from other programs to pay for the costs of fire 

suppression. In such an event, increased accountability for fire spending requires a 

Presidential Declaration certifying the Forest Service is operating in an effective 

and accountable manner with all funds previously released before Contingency 

Funds would be made available. The FLAME and Presidential Contingency accounts 

complement each other in providing a higher level of accountability for fire spending 

and reducing the risk that funds will need to be transferred from other mission critical programs to support the costs of fire suppression. 

I would like to thank the members of this committee and their colleagues for the 

work they put in this past year in crafting and passing legislation for the FLAME 

Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund for the Forest Service. In the past, large fire 

seasons have resulted in funding transfers from other Forest Service accounts to the 

detriment of critical Forest Service work. Funding of the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund and the Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve in the 

FY11 budget will enable critical Forest Service activities to proceed, including fuels 

and forest health treatments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). 

The FY11 budget also contains a significant change by realigning Preparedness 

and Suppression funding, shifting readiness costs from the Suppression account into 

Preparedness. This structure provides better transparency by realigning costs that 

were shifted into the Suppression account beginning in FY 2005. Consistent with 

congressional direction, these program readiness costs have been moved back into 

the Preparedness with no net change in resource availability from FY10. In sum, 

the President’s Budget will promote safe, effective, and accountable outcomes from 

investments made in managing fire on a landscape scale. 

Thriving Rural Communities 

The Secretary’s vision for 2010 and beyond calls for building a forest restoration 

economy that generates green jobs and rural prosperity. In FY11, the Forest Service 

will continue to develop new ways of bringing jobs and economic activity to rural 

communities. The agency will build on 2 years of funding and project success under 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. ARRA projects bring 

jobs and economic stimulus to areas hit hardest by the national recession, including 

many forest-based communities. For example, the ARRA-funded Huron Fuels Reduction project in northeastern Michigan has brought $3.9 million to an area hit 

hard by the economic recession, and created over 50 jobs on fuels reduction crews 

for unemployed or underemployed members of the local communities. Many ARRA 

projects address high-priority forestry needs, such as fuels and forest health treatments and biomass utilization. Our involvement has helped to stimulate collabo-
7 

rative efforts related to restoration, climate change, fire and fuels, and landscapescale conservation. 

The Forest Service will also play an important role in providing expertise to landowners in forest-based communities to help sustain the economic viability of forest 

stewardship. In addition, an increased focus on restoration, particularly in priority 

watersheds, will lead to the creation of more jobs in forest-based communities to 

carry out this high-priority work. 

Conclusion 

The President’s Budget request for FY 2011 addresses the stresses and disturbances, partly caused by climate change, that pose challenges to the health of America’s forests and grasslands. We will respond with treatments to priority watersheds 

identified in a science-based approach and restore their health to enhance their capacity in delivering ecosystem services that Americans want and need. Our restoration treatments will be on a landscape scale, taking an all-lands approach looking 

across landownership boundaries to solve problems to conservation based on collaboration with State, Tribal, local, private, and other Federal stakeholders to achieve 

mutual goals. The Forest Service stands ready, working in tandem with other USDA 

agencies through this budget, to bring health to our forests and enhance the economic vitality of communities. The budget request does not include any funding for 

any new road construction, allowing us to focus on maintaining existing high-clearance and closed roads. We are using the Travel Management Planning process to 

guide our efforts in right-sizing the Agency’s road system. The President’s Budget 

for the USDA Forest Service also contains funding for many other important items, 

such $50 million for the Legacy Roads program to help improve water quality and 

stream conditions, and an increase in the recreation budget that will help rural 

economies while creating opportunities to reconnect people to forest lands. I look forward to sharing more with you about the budget and working with you to see many 

of those budget proposals take shape. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. 
8 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize that I wasn’t here when you opened. I want to thank 

you for scheduling the hearing. 

I want to welcome you, Chief Tidwell. Appreciate your comments 

here. I also want to thank you, and thank your Deputy Under Secretary, Mr. Jensen, for the efforts that you have made to help the 

mill in Ketchikan have a chance to test some of the theories on 
9 

how we can best convert to second-growth forest-products economy 

there in the Tongass National Forest. 

Having said that, I think it is absolutely vital—absolutely vital 

that you and the Department understand that I am not convinced 

that the transition can occur in a single year. In fact, I suspect that 

this transition, in order to be complete, is going to take several decades. In the meantime, you and I must ensure that the remaining 

forest products industry in southeast Alaska survives to enjoy this 

transition. We simply cannot afford to spend 3 to 10 years studying 

how we make the transition. We need to make immediate—immediate traditional timber sales, as well as the second-growth sales, 

to support the few remaining operations. We need them now. We 

need them this spring. 

While I appreciate what you and the Deputy Under Secretary 

have committed to getting done, we need to make some real 

progress. The agency needs to make real progress. I don’t have 

time, and I don’t think you have time, to wait for the Tongass 

roundtable to come to consensus on how we manage the Tongas 

National Forest. You’ve got a forest plan that has been sanctioned 

by the courts, and it’s time that you direct your regional forester, 

your forest supervisor, to really get it implemented. Let’s get it 

done. 

While we’re going through this whole budget proposal that we 

have in place, we’ve got yet another forest products company that 

faces having to auction off its equipment just to pay the bill on a 

month-to-month basis. 

So, I want to make sure that you understand that if you allow 

the few remaining mills in Alaska to die off, there will be no timber 

program on the Tongass. When that occurs, in my mind, there’s 

less need for the Forest Service offices there in Alaska. If we don’t 

have a timber program, why do we need the offices? 

I also want to mention a couple of other issues, and I will utilize 

the question period to raise some other concerns. I need to know 

from you whether the Forest Service and the Department intend to 

honor the court settlement on roadless lands on the Tongass, which 

is memorialized in the Tongass land management plan, or whether 

you attempt—you intend attempt to wrap the Tongass back into 

some larger national roadless area rule. 

Part of the agency’s budget request is a proposal to do away with 

the forest products funding that support the commercial timber 

sale program. In briefings, both the Deputy Under Secretary and 

your staff indicated that only those sales that generated a net positive return against the cost of planning, preparing, and selling the 

commercial timber sales would be funded in the budget. We were 

told that commercial-sized timber would be offered through the 

stewardship contracting efforts, which you’ve mentioned. I suspect 

you’ve been directed to stop preparing what were classically called 

‘‘below-cost timber sales.’’ 

But, I am puzzled that the chief of an agency who has but only 

one program—and that’s the ski area management—that returns a 

positive net return to the Treasury, would go down the path of requiring an above-cost criterion on any program. I think the agency’s opening the door for Congress to demand that all the Forest 

Service programs be above cost, which would virtually abolish the 
10 

agency. For that matter, you and I know that there’s never been— 

there’s never been an above-cost stewardship contract. So, even if 

this criterion is not applied, I’m at loss to understand how you 

could possibly undertake a stewardship contract, when your budget 

request eliminates all funding for the necessary new road construction or road improvements. 

Having said all that, you certainly have my empathy, Chief Tidwell, for having to be the person to have to come before the committee to defend your budget and the proposals that are contained 

in it. I hope that you will communicate back to the Department, 

to the Office of Management and Budget, how disappointed I am. 

I truly wish you the best of luck in managing the Forest Service 

through these very trying times. I thank you for your willingness 

to work with us, but I think you hear the concern in my words this 

morning. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask a few questions and then defer to Senator Murkowski 

for some of her questions. 

You make reference, in your testimony, to the FLAME fund, this 

reserve fund that was recently passed in legislation. But, there’s 

some confusion on my part about the budget. It seems to ignore 

half of the purpose that we set out in the legislation; instead, it 

proposes to create a duplicative reserve fund in place of the 

FLAME reserve fund. Am I just confused on that, or how do you 

see that? What are you proposing in your budget as it relates to 

the legislation we passed? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, first of all I want to thank you and the 

committee for your support to get the FLAME legislation passed. 

It—I think it did—it brought attention to this issue, to help get it 

resolved, and that’s where we are with the—our 2010 budget. So, 

I want to thank you for that effort. 

With our budget, fire suppression, we have—there’s 3, kind of, 

suppression accounts. The first one is our suppression account that 

we’re going to be using for initial attack in our small fires. These 

are generally less than, say, 300 acres. That’s the—our initial-attack fire-suppression budget proposal. 

Then, when we have a large fire—and these are the fires that 

usually we have to bring in the overhead team, a Type 1 or a Type 

2 overhead team—larger fires. We want to use the FLAME account 

to be able to fund those large fires. Before we would transfer funds 

from the FLAME account into this suppression—this initial-attack 

suppression account, we would develop a risk assessment that 

would show that we’re using best science, the best information, the 

best expertise we have about the strategies we’re going to use, and 

then to be able to use that to ensure that there is adequate level 

of accountability, oversight, and transparency with the cost of these 

large fires. So, it will be very clear to be able to see what the costs 

of our large fires are, because you would be able to see that as we 

transfer funds from the FLAME account. 

If we have a moderate fire season, that’ll work fine. But, if we 

get the situation where we’ve had in the past, where we could have 

a very active fire season, where the suppression costs would go beyond what we have in these two suppression accounts, the contin-
11 

gency reserve is there so that we can request those funds 

through—from the President, to be able to transfer those. It will 

almost assure we will not have to transfer funds from other program areas. 

I can—you know, I’ve—once again, I appreciate the work on the 

FLAME Act. I can tell you that one of the most disruptive things 

that’s been going on with the agency and with our communities 

and our partners over the last years is that, when August comes 

along and we have to move money from our other programs to pay 

for fire suppression, and not only is there the disruption for the 

current year, but, come August and September, that’s when our 

folks are also beginning to plan for the next year. We probably 

didn’t do the best job to really display the true consequences of 

what was happening. But, this contingency reserve will guarantee 

that we won’t have to do that. 

So, that’s how the—kind of, the 3 parts of our suppression budget 

will work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask about another issue. I think there 

are advisory committees that are called for in the Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act. I think there’s a advisory committee there. Also, 

in connection with Secure Rural Schools program, there are advisory committees. As far as I’m aware, we don’t have much effort 

or much forward progress in appointing members to those committees. Could you just give us a little bit of a status report on whether that’s happening, or on what timeframe? 

Mr. TIDWELL. With the Secure Rural Schools committees, we are 

making, I think, good progress, in that we have enough members, 

in several of the regions, that those committees can move forward. 

There’s still a couple—we have a couple in Oregon, a couple California we’re still working forward with. But, I expect we’ll be able 

to get those in place soon. 

As far as the committee for the Forest Landscape Restoration 

Act, we have started the process to get that in place, and it’s my 

hope that we’ll have that, in early summer, so that that committee 

will be in place to be able to look at the recommended projects. 

We—last November, we sent out early guidance about how to put 

those project proposals together. In the very near—probably next 

week or so, I’ll be sending out a call letter to the regions to provide 

direction about just how they need to put those project proposals 

together so that, as soon as we can get the committee stood up, 

we’ll be able to put those projects in front of them, and so, we’ll 

be able to go forward. Committee can make recommendation to the 

Secretary. The Secretary can select those projects, and we can get 

started on them this year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, regarding Tongass timber assistance, the budget 

that we’re looking at proposes to end the funding for road construction and the improvements for timber development there in the 

Tongass. I think we recognize that the bulk of the Tongass is just 

clearly not accessible by—without some additional road funding. 

So, can you—as specific to the Tongass, tell me what level of timber harvest you would expect the budget to support; and then, how 

long do you anticipate it might be before the Tongass is able to 
12 

offer what was outlined in the Tongass land management plan, in 

terms of the 220 million board feet that was agreed to? So, what 

do you think the budget is going to support? How do we meet the 

terms of that TLUMP plan? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, this budget request will support the same 

level of timber harvest that we’ve had in the past on the Tongass. 

But, that’s not the problem. The problem is, we not—we have not 

been able to implement. If you look at, you know, the track record 

over the last years, the amount of work we’re actually being able 

to implement on the ground is not enough to sustain an integrated 

wood products industry. 

So, this budget request, I think, will actually provide the incentive for us to be able to move forward on the transition plan that 

you referenced. A key part of that transition plan is going to be a 

bridge. As we’ve discussed, there is just no way we can go from 

where we are today to a focus on second growth on the Tongass 

and still maintain that integrated wood products industry. We need 

to have a bridge. That bridge is going to have to, you know, continue to have some of the traditional timber harvest activities to 

occur. 

So, in this budget, when I talk about using stewardship contracts, I think the stewardship contract is a better tool for the 

Tongass than a timber sale contract. It takes away this argument 

about the cost. We can take a look at—here’s the piece of landscape 

we want to do some work on, and look at everything we want to 

get accomplished on that. If part of it is to remove saw timber, remove biomass, do some stream restoration, do some roadwork on 

there, do some road decommissioning on that piece of landscape, 

we can put a project together. Through a stewardship contract, you 

know, if—especially, as part of our bridge strategy—we need to 

build a road—through a stewardship contract, we can build a road. 

We’re just not going to be able to use our—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We won’t have any money to build the 

road, though—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. We—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Is the—— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. Won’t have—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Problem. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We won’t—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Roads—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. We won’t be—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Are expensive. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. But, we won’t be able to use our CMRD funds 

for that road. But, through a stewardship contract, if there’s, you 

know, say, receipts that are available from the biomass that needs 

to be removed, we can use that, you know, to help defray the costs 

of a road. 

But, the real key on our budget here is that we have a larger 

road system than we need. I understand the—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you think—— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. Tongass—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. That’s true in the Tongass? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The Tongass is probably different. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is definitely different. 
13 

Mr. TIDWELL. Different. But, at the same time, this budget will 

help us, I think, move toward that transition. I—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you about this transition plan. 

We can have a much longer conversation about the uniqueness of 

the Tongass and the fact that, if there is no way to build out roads, 

it is very difficult to accomplish any plan. We keep referring to this 

transition plan. When are we going to see it? How will that plan, 

then, relate to the Tongass land management plan requirements 

that the Forest Service meet the allowable sale quantities that 

were approved in that plan? How do we mesh this all together? 

When are going to see this transition plan? Then, how will this 

plan be funded through the budget? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I think our—you know, our current level of funding 

that the region receives, I think, will be adequate for the restoration activities, the harvest activities that I see will occur in the future on the Tongass. 

We are working on some concepts with this transition plan, but 

I think it’s essential, for this to be successful, that we need to work 

with the people of Alaska. We need to work with the communities, 

the interest groups, to build support around this. If I think we put 

out the perfect transition plan today, without first taking the time 

to really work with folks that have spent a couple years now— 

think—working on this, I don’t think we’ll be successful. I think it’s 

essential—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I don’t—— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. That we—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Think you’ll— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. Work—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Be successful—— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. Together—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Because I don’t believe they 

will be in business. I don’t believe there will be anybody to implement a transition plan if we keep talking and talking and talking 

and talking—and, you know, talking about how we’re going to 

allow for loans. Loans don’t do anybody any good if you can’t get 

the timber and if there is no work. 

So, I’m very concerned that we’ve been in planning mode for a 

long time, and now the 4 small operators that we have down in 

south/southeast are, as I mentioned in my opening comments—I 

mean, they’re selling off equipment, piecemeal. We’ve got—you 

know, we’ve got one entity that is in liquidation now. We won’t 

have anybody to make that transition. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that my time is out, but I hope we’ll have 

an opportunity for a second round. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator SHAHEEN. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by commending the administration and Secretary 

Vilsack for his—for making the Forest Service a priority. I think 

that’s very important, and long overdue. So, let me say how much 

I appreciate that. 

Now, I hate to continue to be focused on parochial projects; however, I will, because I’m very interested to hear how this budget is 

going to affect the White Mountain National Forest, which is most-
14 

ly in New Hampshire—800,000 acres in New Hampshire, and 

spreads into western Maine. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, it’s one 

of the most popular in the country. We—get over 6 million visitors 

a year. We are within a day’s drive of 70 million people. So, this 

is an area that is the focus of a lot of attention on the part of tourists coming through New England. 

I was concerned, in talking to folks—the staff at the White 

Mountain National Forest—to learn that their actual funding for 

last year was down 15 percent. I’m concerned about continuation 

of a reduction in funding for what they need to do. I appreciate the 

issues that our western forests are facing. I don’t know about the 

Tongass forest in Alaska, but I’m sure that it has similar—there 

are similar concerns that they have to what we’re looking at in 

New Hampshire, in terms of issues specific to our location. 

I think anytime—I think it’s important, and what I’m hoping 

you’re going to tell me is that you appreciate the differences between our forests in the East and the forests in the West, and recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work for both. The 

forestry sector is a very important part of our economy in New 

Hampshire. The White Mountain forests are a critical piece of that. 

If we get to the point where there’s not a enough staff to regulate 

the timber harvesting, it’s going to have an impact across the timber industry in New Hampshire. 

So, I guess what I’m interested in hearing is how you think this 

budget is going to affect our ability to do what we need to do in 

the White Mountain forests. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for the question. Also, thank 

you for recognizing the support the Forest Service is receiving from 

the administration with this budget. In these difficult economic 

times, for us to have a budget request that actually has a slight 

increase over the 2010 budget, I—demonstrates the level of support 

that we have from the President, the level of support and understanding that Secretary Vilsack has with the Forest Service, and 

how important our work is, you know, to the Nation, and especially 

to the rural communities that we live and work in. 

When I think about, you know, the White Mountain, and I actually think about our eastern forests, a lot of what this budget’s 

built on is the good work that they’ve been doing over the years. 

When I talk about a landscape-scale conservation approach, that 

came from our eastern forests. They understand this; this is how 

they’ve been working. When I talk about restoration, and I think 

about the White Mountain, especially in the lands we’ve acquired 

through the Weeks Act, I’ll tell you, that is the definition ‘‘restoration.’’ When you can go up there and see those national forests 

today, and you compare to what they were years ago, they understand restoration. It’s not something—I can go up there—when I 

visited, I had to be really careful to say, ‘‘Hey, we want to really 

increase restoration, really focus on that.’’ They go, ‘‘Wait a minute. 

We know how to do that.’’ When it comes to collaboration, that’s 

how they’ve worked. 

So, I look at this budget, it’s very much in alignment with what 

we’ve been doing in some of our eastern forests. It’s the sort of 

thing we want to get more across the entire Nation. 
15 

I do understand that every forest is different; every single one, 

even those that are directly adjacent. It’s one of the benefits of our 

forest planning process. So, we can actually take—you know, provide direction, you know, to specific forests, based on what the communities need, based on their inputs, to be able to design and provide guidance about how that forest needs to be managed. 

So, I think this budget, you know, lines up very well—this budget request lines up very well with the things that the White Mountain needs. 

When it comes to recreation, yes, that’s a heavily used, heavily 

visited, heavily enjoyed piece of country. This budget request also 

includes an increase for recreation. We have over 175 million visits 

every year. It takes, not only everything we can do with that budget, but all of our partners that we work with, to be able to continue 

to provide those recreational opportunities. I think, you know, the 

forest in your State is a prime example of how we need to continue 

to work together to be able to provide that. 

So, I think this budget is very much in alignment with just what 

the White Mountain’s been working on. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I have some more questions, Mr. 

Chairman, but my time is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator RISCH. Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Chief, welcome. Thank you for visiting us. 

Tell me—I understand that in the stimulus package, you—Forest Service got about $1.1 billion. Is that correct? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That’s correct—$1.15 billion. 

Senator RISCH. How much of that has been spent? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Our expenditures are to—from the last reporting 

date, were only about 10 or 11 percent. We have—you know, with 

our CMR, or construction projects, we have allocated, or are close 

to awarding contracts, on, oh, about 60 percent of that work. With 

the wildland fire, we’re about close to 80 percent of what we’ve obligated or are about to release contracts on. 

The expenditures is something that we’re looking into, because 

it’s kind of a—it’s a question that I have. I thought the—as we 

awarded these contracts, that folks would be going to work, and 

they’d be submitting their invoices, and—et cetera. So, it’s one of 

the things we’re looking at to see what the—where’s the difference 

in that lag time? 

Part of it is that—as you well you know, that a lot of the country 

that this work is going to be done is—it’s wintertime, there’s a lot 

of snow. In fact, our folks did some analysis and said about 58 percent of these projects are in parts of the country that receive over 

70 inches of snow every year. So, we definitely have to factor in, 

you know, that some of this is seasonal work. 

But, on the other hand, it’s one of the things that we’re looking 

into to find out why. Part of it is to, you know, make sure that we 

have very transparent reporting and—so that we can, you know, 

show how this work is getting done. But, we’ve—I think we’ve done 

a good job to get work obligated, get contracts awarded. 

One of the things that we’ve also done is that we’ve made sure 

that we’ve provided this work to local contractors and to some of 
16 

the smaller firms. It might have been easier for us to just bundle 

these jobs up into very large contracts and then just have a limited 

number of companies that could bid on that, and we chose not to 

do that. We purposely did what we can to provide a good mix, to 

make sure that the smaller companies could bid on these contracts, 

so local companies could bid on it. So, that’s also—you know, created, you know, some additional contracting. 

We did put up our—these regional contracting centers to help facilitate this work. When we started to get a backlog with those contracting centers, we doubled the staffing in those contracting centers so that, as soon as the contract packages were submitted—we 

have 90-day turnaround time from when those projects are submitted to the contracting center to when they are awarded. With 

our requirements for advertising, I think that’s a very aggressive 

schedule. 

But, I’ll get back to you with our results as to what we’ve found 

about why the expenditures seem to be, you know, not quite tracking with our level of obligations. 

Senator RISCH. What do you think—just off the top of your head, 

how much of it will you have spent by the end of this fiscal year, 

by October the 1st? Just ballpark is all I’m looking for, Tom. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’m optimistic that, you know, we’ll 

have—you know, by—you know, by the end of this field season 

that, you know, the majority of this will be spent. You know, depending on the size of the contract, we require a—almost an immediate startup date—no more than 30 days from when the contract’s 

awarded to when you start. Some of the contracts have a very short 

time that they have to be completed. Some of the larger contracts, 

they have a couple years. So, some of this will, you know, go into 

the next year and continue to provide jobs. But, by the end of this 

field season, I expect that we’ll have a significant increase and— 

the outlays, the expenditures on this. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that. 

Let me just say, in closing here, that I appreciate your work in 

getting your budget down. I see you’ve worked at that over the 

budget, and obviously America can’t go on the way it is spending 

money. It’s going to be more severe, I think, in future years. 

The one thing I would like to point out is, you received a letter 

from the Idaho delegation urging you to reconsider decreasing the 

discount for seniors and the disabled people who buy permits for 

camping and what have you. You’re reducing it from 50 percent to 

10 percent. That’s got to be a pretty de minimis amount in the 

overall budget. It seems to me, with those people who are the most 

vulnerable people that we have, that we could continue that 50– 

percent discount. So, I’d urge you to have a look at that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, thank you for that. It—we did 

propose changing that discount, and we also proposed increasing 

some benefits with the annual passes, to kind of have a mix there. 

I can tell you, that by far—by far, the comments that we received 

have been not supportive of this idea. We haven’t made an announcement yet. But, you know, we’re going to be looking at different ways to be able to address what we need to do in our campgrounds, and find other ways with that. But I do appreciate the 

question. I appreciate your letter. 
17 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. We generally support many of the 

things the Forest Service does, but count us in that group of ‘‘not 

supportive,’’ please. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lincoln. 

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I apologize 

for being in many places, and being late to the hearing today. But, 

I do thank you, and very much appreciate the hearing today. You 

know that the Forest Service is an important agency to me. I’m 

very proud that we share a little bit of jurisdiction over this group 

of dedicated professionals, between our committees, both here in 

Energy, as well as in the Agriculture Committee. So, I appreciate 

very much. 

Chief Tidwell, thank you. Appreciate you being here today. Certainly appreciate working with you, and having a visit. I was 

pleased to get to go home in Arkansas and tell them I had met 

with the chief of the Forest Service. So, I appreciate the opportunity to work with you. 

Just 2 quick questions, and I know you probably know what the 

first one’s going to be. I understand that several groups have filed 

appeals regarding the proposal to drastically reduce the off-highway vehicle, the OHV, use in the Ouachita National Forest for us 

in Arkansas. I ran into the mayor of Mena the other day, and they 

said they were going to lose about 50 percent of their revenue, in 

a time when—they can’t support that in an economy like this. 

But, I’m extremely concerned about the decision, and it came as 

a great shock to our constituents in Arkansas, particularly the decision to close the Wolf Pen Gap area for most of the year. Obviously, 

just keeping it open for a few months during the summertime is 

really not adequate for the number of individuals that really enjoy 

it. It’s an area that’s largely dependent on tourism, without a 

doubt, from visitors who come there to enjoy the forest. 

I relayed that to you in January, and I just am very concerned 

about it, and hope that you in the Forest Service will work with 

the—work these issues out with the local communities and be cognizant of what impact it has on them, and certainly be willing to 

look at their appeals and their concerns. I think they are willing 

to work with you. I just—I hope that you’ll be cognizant of what 

they are up against there, and hope that you can assure me that— 

you know, that you’re not going to move on those restrictions, in 

terms of access, until the issues have been resolved and that you 

have kind of worked with the community. 

Then, the last thing is, is I’m just also alarmed about the Forest 

Service budget proposal to eliminate the timber sale line item. I 

know you knew that that was coming from me, because the timber 

sale is a big issue for us. I think it—it’s—it is one that we really 

use effectively and efficiently in Arkansas. We have one of the best 

management practices in the—in any of the States. We bring everybody to the table to make those determinations and make sure 

that we’re using those resources effectively and efficiently and in— 

as good stewards of the land. But, we also return a tremendous 

amount of resources to the Treasury through those timber sales. 
18 

Just would—you know, again, hope that can ensure us, in some 

way, that the proposed, you know, Integrated Resource Restoration 

Program and other cuts will not further, you know, harm the already struggling sawmills that—and timber industries that we 

have in Arkansas and in other States. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you. 

I’ll address your first question, on the travel plan. As—and I, too, 

thank you for the time to visit with me and express your concerns 

on this. You know, we—we’ve received 27 appeals on this decision, 

and we may even actually get a couple more; they may come in the 

mail this week. So, it’s—it’ll take a little while for us to work 

through those, but I can assure you that our staff’s going to take 

a look at those and see if we can find ways to resolve, you know, 

the concerns there so that we can move forward with a decision 

that can be supported. 

I think it’s essential that we do our travel planning. I think it’s 

essential to be able to continue—for the years to come, to be able 

to continue to provide motorized recreational opportunities by having a dedicated system of trails in dedicated areas. I think it does 

provide for sustainable recreation use. So, it’s very important that 

we are able to get this done. 

It’s also essential that we do it in a way that it’s—can be supported. There’s some ownership into that decision so that we have 

the compliance that we need, and that’s just essential. 

So, I’m optimistic that—you know, based on the appeals, and the 

concerns that are raised, and hopefully some ideas there that will 

help us to take a look at how we can address the concerns, but, 

at the same time, you know, provide the recreational opportunities 

that folks really enjoy there. So—and I appreciate your leadership 

and help on this. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. On the—your second question, our budget request, 

the last thing it is, is to reduce active management restoration 

work. In fact, it’s my intent that through this budget request we 

can do more. You know, in the Ouachita, it’s a forest that many 

of—many of their sales do cover costs of preparing and administrating those sales. So, you know, we still have the option of using 

a timber sale contract. That’s really project by project, so any 

project that—you know, when we look at—the potential value of 

the material to be removed will cover those costs. We can use a 

timber sale contract. 

But, what I’d really want us to be using is stewardship contracts. 

I think it’s a better tool. I think it’s a better tool in the Ouachita 

to use. Maybe not in every place. The reason it’s a better tool is 

that it allows us to put all the work that we want to get accomplished across this landscape in under one contract. It provides assurance that we’re not only going to be doing the biomass removal, 

the sawlog removal that we need to get done, but also we’re going 

to be doing the roadwork that needs to be done, improving wildlife 

habitat that needs to be done, addressing fisheries concerns, addressing recreation concerns, trails. That’s the idea behind the 

stewardship contract, and I think it’s a better tool. So, if anything, 

in my view, this is going to help us to be—to do more. 
19 

Now, we’re going to continue with our integrated resource restoration line item. The focuses on that is going to be acres treated, 

acres restored. But, we’re still going to track outputs, we’re still 

going to be able to tell you, at the end of the year, you know, how 

many million board feet we sold, how many acres of wildlife habitat 

we improved, how many miles of stream that we’ve improved. 

We’re still going to track those outputs. But, the concept here, it 

really supports a stewardship contracting idea, in that it allows us 

to really take a look at the landscape and think about what we 

need to do. What’s the work that needs to be done there? Instead 

of being driven by this program or this program, it’ll actually allow 

folks to be able to sit down together, take an integrated approach, 

and I think it’ll actually help build more support for the kind of 

work that we’re doing there on the Ouachita, the kind of work that 

we need to get more done throughout the country. 

Senator LINCOLN. I appreciate that. I know my time is up. But, 

would you say that—if, in fact, those stewardship contracts are the 

best tools to use, I would just say that timeliness is also an issue. 

When you get too many things into one contract—too many purposes, too many objectives—sometimes people feel like that they 

move too slowly. At this juncture right now, particularly in the timber industry, they are—they’re in dire need. They’re—they were in 

dire need, years ago. So, I just hope that we’ll look at an efficient 

and effective way of implementing things that can move in a way 

that doesn’t take too long, though. 

But, thank you, Chief. I appreciate it. Appreciate you being here, 

and appreciate working with you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, great to have you here. 

I am pleased about a number of things in the budget, the support 

for fire suppression. I’m also very pleased to see the shift to landscape-scale restoration work. The $50 million for the priority watersheds and job stabilization effort, in my view, is exactly the kind 

of targeting that we’re going to need in the future. 

As you know, in December we were finally able—after what 

amounts to years of discussion, we were able, in Oregon, to bring 

together the timber industry and the environmental folks on the 

east side—in effect, it’s 6 national Forests, over 8 million acres— 

on a combined plan that’s going to get sawlogs to the mills, give 

a boost to biomass, bring about more efficient forest management, 

and also do some serious old-growth protection. So, we think—in 

fact, people were kind of stunned when these folks were standing, 

you know, next to each other—people who had, by and large, spent 

a lot of time litigating against each other—coming together. So, we 

look forward to working with you, because I think you’re moving 

to the kind of approach that Oregon has tried to promote. 

Now, I’m sorry that I was a little bit late. I know you’re consolidating some of the items into the new integrated resource restoration line item. What people are going to want to know in my part, 

you know, of the country is, How, with this change, can you give 
20 

us assurance that it’s going to be possible to get sawlogs to the 

mills? Why don’t you see if you can—I know you touched on it with 

my colleague, and she and I share a lot of similar interests in this, 

but tell me, if you would for the record, how we can provide assurance, in our part of the country, you can get sawlogs to the mills. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you, for the question, and also, 

thank you for the work that you do, the leadership you provide. As 

you referenced, what we’ve been able to bring together there in 

eastern Oregon—to be able to bring folks together that, in the past, 

have had a hard time probably being in the same—sometimes the 

same town, now are willing to sit down together, to work together, 

to reach agreement on the type of work that we need to get accomplished. 

With our integrated resource restoration budget line item proposal, like I was discussing, we will be focused on acres restored 

as one of the metrics, but we will continue to track the outputs, 

which will be—for instance, board feet. What we estimate with this 

budget, that we will produce about 2.4 billion board feet, which is 

just a very slight decrease from what we have in the 2010 budget 

proposal. I believe that’s a very conservative number. 

I think that, by the end of the year, that, with this approach, 

we’ll be able to build more support for the work that needs to be 

done, and that we will continue to be able to provide that type of 

material. I know, without question, how essential it is to maintain 

the integrate wood products industry. If we lose that industry, and 

in the places in this country where we have, it’s just so difficult for 

us get the work done, to get the restoration work done. 

So, you know, I wouldn’t be here making this request if I didn’t 

think that we’ll be able to continue to do that level of work. Actually, I feel that we can increase the level of work that we get done 

through this budget request. 

Senator WYDEN. You’re certainly right on with respect to losing 

the infrastructure. If we lose the infrastructure in eastern Oregon, 

which is absolutely pivotal to bringing people together, then you 

don’t have the tools, for example, to have a real biomass, you know, 

industry. It was very key to getting agreement. 

On the question of the Recovery, you know, Act, the projection 

was that there’d be 20,000 new private-sector jobs by the completion of implementation. Obviously, we’ve got a long, long way to go 

to hit that target. What, in your view—because, as you know, 

there’s a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done—what, 

in your view, can be done to accelerate the pace of hiring folks to 

do work that we all need, is—we all understand is so important? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, it’s one of the things that I’ve been focused on since I came into this position, about how we can accelerate, you know, getting the contracts awarded, and then accelerate to get the work started. Like I—we have looked at our contracting centers to make sure they’re properly staffed, so that the— 

as soon as the contract packages are presented, that we have a 

deadline to be able to turn those around and have them out within 

90 days. That includes the time that we’re required to—for 

presolicitation and bidding on these projects. So, we’re tracking 

that. 
21 

In fact, I have a call, every week with our National Leadership 

Council, where we talk about this. I ask each of our regional foresters, our station directors, What are the issues, what are the barriers that are, you know, slowing down for us to get this work 

done? So, each week as things come up, we sit and talk about that 

and decide a course forward. So, we’re continuing to make, I think, 

very good improvement. 

You know, part of it is just the seasonal nature of some of our 

work in parts of the country. I, you know, expect, this spring, we’ll 

see a significant increase in the number of jobs, you know, the outlays that occur. We—I put out direction, earlier, that we needed to 

have every contract package into our contracting center by the 1st 

of March. We’re going to be close to that. We won’t quite have that 

done. So, even the last contracts that need to be awarded, we’ll 

have those out for the start of this field season. So, I’m expecting 

we’ll see a significant increase in the number of jobs, the number 

of people the are—we’re able to put back to work. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m going to ask you, at every hearing when 

you’re here, about what’s being done to get more folks in place. Because this work is so urgent, and the reality is—and I know my 

time is up, but, Mr. Chairman, these fires that we’re seeing in our 

part of the country, they are not natural fires, they are infernos 

that come about as a result of years and years of neglect. So, just 

expect that, every time that you’re here, I’m going be pressing on 

what’s done to make sure that we get those 20,000 jobs. We’ve got 

a long way to go. I appreciate the fact you want to accelerate the 

hiring, and we’ve just got to keep the pressure on. 

I think—Mr. Chairman, are you going to have another round 

after this? 

The CHAIRMAN. We will. 

Senator WYDEN. Great. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Let me just ask one question, and then defer to Senator Murkowski for additional questions. 

You mentioned, in your opening statement, I believe, the Youth 

Conservation Corps. To what extent have we been able to use the 

Recovery Act funding, or the budget that has now been proposed 

for next year, to really increase, significantly, the number of young 

people that we can put to work in these Youth Conservation Corps? 

Is that on track to happen, or not? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, it is. I will—I’ll get back to you 

with the specifics on the number of projects that we have the Conservation Corps working on. 

But, I can tell you, that is one of the groups that have been essential for us to be able to more forward and quickly put people to 

work. They are—the Corps network is set up so that, as soon as 

they receive the funds, they can put people to work almost immediately. 

So, it’s been a focus with our economic recovery projects, and it’s 

going to be a focus with our—especially this year’s budget, and also 

with 2011. I feel it’s not only a great way to get the work done, 

but it’s an excellent investment, the investment in the youth of this 

country, to give them the experience to be able to get out there and 

not only get some good work done, but to have that experience, to 
22 

be out of doors, having experience to—for us to talk to them about 

the environment, to talk them about the mission of the Forest 

Service, because we look at that as an excellent way for us to do 

outreach for our future employees for the Forest Service. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s certainly my view, as well. I think that 

we’ve got a great opportunity to use these Youth Conservation 

Corps around the country to a much greater extent than we do 

today to get a lot of good work accomplished. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, I’d like to ask you about the roadless rule. As we 

all know, there’s discussion that the administration will reimplement the roadless rule policy that was proposed initially during the 

Clinton administration. In Alaska, with the Tongass, got some 

other issues at play. You’ve got the Alaska Lands Act, you’ve got 

the Tongass Timber Reform Act, you’ve got some other congressional mandates, a specific legislative mandate that there be harvest from the forest. That was a mandate that the Forest Service 

had recognized 3 years ago, when they settled the suit over the 

roadless issues filed by the State of Alaska. 

So, my question, to you is, In view of all that, does the Forest 

Service—does the administration intend to defend, and to vigorously defend, the court settlement that we have with the Tongass, 

given the Tongass specific legislative history there? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, I have not been, you know, 

briefed on that lawsuit. In fact, I think it’s planned for later this 

week, to be able to sit down with that, to be able to specifically answer your questions on that. 

But, when it comes to roadless, you know, it’s—I’ve been working 

on this issue for close to 30 years, almost my entire career, and I 

think about all the time and energy that we’ve spent on trying to 

come to some agreement about how roadless areas should be managed. You know, that’s going to continue to be my focus. and we 

have some work to, you know, do on the Tongass. So, we’re—you 

know, this administration has been very clear that we are going to 

protect roadless areas, we’re going to protect those values. At the 

same time, we have to, you know, work, you know, with the concerns and the issues that come along with that. 

So, at this point in time, we’re waiting—we’re not moving forward with doing any action, we’re going to wait to see what happens in the courts. In the past, we’ve moved out and done additional rulemaking before the courts have ruled, and it’s—you know, 

creates a kind of an ongoing situation. So, this time around, the decision’s been, we’re going to wait to just see what the courts do on 

roadless. 

I expect we will, you know, defend. I don’t see any reason why 

we would not defend that. If there is something different there, I 

will personally give you a call and let you know. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. As you say that you will 

work to protect those roadless areas, I would certainly hope that 

you would work to protect the settlement agreement that was 

reached with regards to the Tongass and the issues that were presented in that litigation. Again, it’s more than just one lawsuit. 

You’ve got Federal Acts—— 
23 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Our Alaska Lands Act, the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act, that all come into play. We would certainly hope that this administration, as well as any other administration, would protect those agreements that have been reached 

and, again, vigorously defend them. 

Let me ask you about the stewardship sales. I understand that 

your staff and our legislative staffs have had multiple briefings on 

this issue. What I understand is that only those timber sales— 

again, the below-cost timber sales—only the timber sales that are 

going to return more revenue than they cost will be developed. I 

want to make sure that I understand that, with this budget, that 

is—that, in fact, the direction that is being taken with the budget 

is that you will—you will not be allowing sales to move forward 

that are these below-cost timber sales, that, in fact, the budget proposes to end the use of commercial timber sales that don’t return 

more revenue than they cost to plan and prepare and sell. Is that 

a correct interpretation of where this budget takes us? 

Mr. TIDWELL. This budget request encourages the use of stewardship contracting. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I understand that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s one of the things that—I’ve been frustrated, 

over the last few years, of why we—as an agency, we haven’t been 

able to do more. So, this budget encourages and facilitates, you 

know, the use of stewardship contracting. We still have the timber 

sale contract as a tool to accomplish the work, and we’ll use that 

in the places where the material to be removed will cover the 

cost—the value of that material will cover the costs of preparing 

and administrating the sale. But, in—but, even in those areas, a 

stewardship contract, I think, is often a better tool. 

I want to keep both tools. I think it’s essential that we have both 

contracts, but I want to see us to do more with stewardship contracting. I really believe it’s a better tool—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me—— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. For the Tongass. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Ask you, though, about that. I 

mentioned it in my opening comments. I made the statement that 

there haven’t been any stewardship contracts that return more revenue receipts to the Treasury than they cost the Forest Service to 

plan and prepare and sell. Isn’t that a correct statement? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, I’ll have to get back to you 

on—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. That. I know that—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Can you give me a list of—if there are, in 

fact, stewardship contracts that, in fact—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. OK. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Do pencil out, can you provide 

us that list? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I will. 

[Information referred to follows] 

Mr. TIDWELL. The concept of a stewardship contract is, where we 

do have a valuable material that needs to be removed—sawlogs, 

biomass—we—through a stewardship contract, we can use those 
24 

revenues to then pay for the restoration work. So, most stewardship contracts are not going to return money to the Treasury, 

just—it’ll—they’ll balance out, it’ll zero out. 

In many of our stewardship contracts, we also have to add appropriations to that to get all the work done. So, the material to be 

removed may defray some of the costs, but we also have to use appropriated funds to cover all the restoration work that we want to 

get accomplished. 

The stewardship contract, there’s no requirement that it returns—covers the cost of preparing the work or anything—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. Like that. So, you know, this belowcost issue, it’s—it definitely wasn’t the—you know, the intent to 

even bring that up into the discussion; it was to be able to use the 

right tool for the work we want to get done. So, we’ll continue to 

use—have both tools. But, a stewardship contract, the authority 

that we have, I believe, in most cases, is a better way to get this 

work done. There’ll be other places we’ll use—you know, we’ll use 

timber sale contracts, where we can. But—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I just want to make sure that we don’t 

have a different standard here, that for commercial timber sales, 

you know, you’re—they won’t be allowed to go forward unless 

they—more revenue comes in than goes out, and that, for other, it 

would be a different standard. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The difference is the contract we use, whether 

it’s—that’s timber sale contract or a stewardship contract. That’s 

the only difference. The work still—the work is what—the work— 

the restoration work, the work that needs to be done, we—we’re— 

still go forward with that, we just use a different contract. That’s 

the difference on this. 

So—and like I—I’m very confident that we’re going to be able to 

get more work done than we have in the past by this increased 

focus on using stewardship contracts. We have a ways to go, we’re 

actually developing a new contract. It’ll actually be—it’ll be easier 

for our folks to be able to use. I think it’ll be easier for our contracting purchasers. The folks that have been using stewardship 

contracting, those that are comfortable with it, they’ve been able to, 

you know, bid, and use—bid on these projects. 

Now there’s a lot of support for this concept, not only from the 

purchasers and the contractors, but there’s a lot of support across 

the board for using a stewardship contract. It provides that assurance that I’ll—not only are we doing the biomass removal, the 

sawlog removal, but, at the same time, we’re doing restoration 

work that folks are very interested in. So, by putting that together 

in one package, you build a lot more support for the kind of work 

that needs to be done on the landscape. 

Instead of using a timber sale contract to do the biomass removal, having another contract to do some roadwork, another contract to do some fisheries habitat work, the stewardship contract, 

we can put that together. Then if there are any value of the material that needs to be removed, we can then use that to offset the 

costs for this other work that needs to be part of the package. 

You know, I am—I’m very—I really feel strongly that this is a 

better tool, in most cases, for the Forest Service to be using it. But, 
25 

we’ll use both tools. But, it’s all just—the difference is in the contract that we use. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

I should begin by recognizing Under Secretary Harris Sherman, 

who I saw in the back of the room here, and just thanking him for 

his willingness to come to New Hampshire and meet with folks in 

New Hampshire who are involved in the forestry industry in the 

State. Would love to have you come up, too, Chief Tidwell. So—we 

don’t want to show any favoritism here, we want everybody in New 

Hampshire. 

I want to raise the same question that Senator Wyden did about 

what the impact of the reorganization into an integration resource 

restoration line will have on the ability of National Forest offices 

to avoid reductions in timber harvesting, and just would appreciate 

assurances that we won’t see reduced timber harvesting as the result of that reorganization. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, you know, you look at what we’re estimating, the amount of board feet that we plan to sell in 2011, and 

it’s a vary slide, it goes from 2.5 in 2010 to 2.4. Once again, I think 

that’s a very conservative estimate. So, I actually believe we’ll be 

able to accomplish more by having this budget line item. 

You could argue that we should be able to accomplish this level 

of integration with multiple budget line items. But, the difference 

is that it allows our budget structure to being aligned with the 

kind of work we’re trying to get done on the landscape. So, it just 

helps facilitate that integrated thinking, and it helps facilitate to 

bring people together in their planning. It sends, I think, a very 

clear message about the focus for the Forest Services, on restoration. I used, you know, forests in your State as the perfect example 

about—really what drives the work that they do is on restoration 

of those forests. 

So, I am—I’m very confident that this consolidated budget line 

item is actually going to help facilitate the work. It’s going to make 

it easier for us to be able to take a look at the landscape versus 

program by program of what we need to get accomplished, and it 

will—in my experience, it will definitely build more support for the 

type of work that we need to get done. 

So, you know, if I thought we were going to see a significant reduction, I’d be telling you that, and that we’d—we are shifting. 

But, that’s not the case. 

There are so many places in this country. We need to do more 

work, and I think that’s very evident. So, this is one—one way that 

it will really help us, I think, to be a little more effective, build 

more support, and be able to continue to produce the mix of benefits that come off the national forests and grasslands. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Finally, Senator Murkowski raised the issue about roadless 

areas. I know that there is a moratorium on taking action on that 

for a while, until some of the court issues have been resolved. But, 

again, since I’m probably not going to see you until after that has 

happened, unless you come up to New Hampshire, I do think it’s 

important to reiterate, again, the difference between the eastern 
26 

forests and the western forests, that it’s not—when we’re looking 

at roadless areas, it should not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and 

that, in New Hampshire, we have a consensus forest policy that— 

and plan—that the environmental community, the timber industry, 

and policymakers have agreed to, and it’s been put together with 

a lot of local input. I would hope that we’re not going to have a 

policy in Washington that comes in and supersedes what has been 

carefully put together by the local folks in New Hampshire. 

So, I would just urge that, as we look at any future efforts to address roadless areas, that it take into consideration what’s happened on the ground in States. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for that. I can assure you that 

we will. I have been up to our new office there, which I think—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good. Which—— 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. Is—— 

Senator SHAHEEN [continuing]. You’ve beat me, then, because I 

haven’t been there yet, and I understand it’s really terrific. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s a model of what we can do to reduce our environmental footprint. You know, I wish we could have an office like 

that everywhere. But, that is one that the folks have done an incredible job to just bring everything together, to be able to provide 

the heat from wood pellets; actually, then, when there’s surplus, 

they can use a gasification system to actually put electricity onto 

the grid; that you have a—you know, just an incredible building 

there. So, we use that as an example about—a model about what 

we can do to really reduce our environmental footprint, you know, 

reduce the energy costs, and everything. So, it’s something I’m very 

proud of, and I was very pleased, excited to be there on the day 

we were able to dedicate that new building. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Great. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Risch, you had a additional question. 

Senator RISCH. Briefly. 

Tom, I don’t know why you think roadless is so hard. You know, 

I only worked on it once, and it was tremendously successful. I 

don’t know what the—why the difficulties. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH. For those of you who don’t know, Tom and I 

worked together on the Idaho roadless, where we had 9.2 million 

acres of roadless, and some of the most diverse in the country. But, 

we wrote a rule, and—well, it was a collaborative effort, and it was 

supported by the environmental community, the industry, and everyone else. 

I want to thank you, right now, for defending it. We have a small 

challenge to it—and it truly is a small challenge. We have both the 

conservation groups and NSTA groups that have stood by us and 

are defending it. Thank you, for the new administration carrying 

on the defense of that. We appreciate it. 

I’ve also noted, in the things that you’ve put out, you’ve indicated 

that whatever else happens with the roadless rule, that Idaho rule 

will stand, having been published and adopted by the Forest Service. So, we appreciate that, and thank you very much. 
27 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I, too, want to thank you. When I look at 

what we were able accomplish with the Idaho roadless rule, that— 

and people have asked me, ‘‘Well, how did you do that?’’ I first reference then Governor Risch, now Senator Risch, his leadership of 

what you’re able to do to recognize what it would take to bring people together and to be able to strike a compromise that protects 

roadless areas, but, at the same time, provides some flexibility to 

address, you know, concerns from the local communities. You 

know, I’m very proud to have been, just, part of that. 

But, Senator, I—once again, I just want to thank you for your 

leadership. That’s the sort of thing that, often, is what it takes to 

be able to get these things done. I think if we can find resolution 

in Idaho, I think we can find resolution everywhere, when it comes 

to roadless. 

Senator RISCH. I think that—people ask me the same thing, 

‘‘How’d you get it done?’’—and I think that—the first thing that 

struck me, because of my forestry background, was that, over the 

40 or 30 years, whatever it is, that they’ve been fighting about it, 

that everyone was attempting to treat roadless as a one-size-fitsall. As you know, I broke it into 280 different roadless pieces in 

Idaho, and we treated each one like a piece of property should be 

treated: uniquely. Although we put them in 5 different categories— 

that really, really worked. I mean, people rallied around. It was 

amazing how well people accepted the fact that—industry people 

who—you know, we had ‘‘not one more acre’’ people for wilderness, 

what have you, and I said, ‘‘Look at this. Look at this piece of property. You think you’re going to cut trees on here? Build it? It’s 

never going to happen, you know, why are we even talking about 

this?’’ Once we did that, once we broke it out, that seemed to be— 

yeah, I think it was the keystone, I really do. So—anyway, thank 

you for your help. 

I saw one of your predecessors—Mr. Bosworth, who—by the way, 

we were in the College of Forestry together, we were in the same 

class. I hadn’t see Dale in a while. I was on a congressional delegation in a visit to Egypt last April, and I got on an elevator in Egypt 

and I ran into Dale Bosworth. I said, ‘‘What are you doing here?’’ 

He says, ‘‘I’m doing some consulting work for the Forest Service.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Dale, have you looked around? You know anything about 

palm trees?’’ You know, the—— 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciated my colleague from New Hampshire putting in a 

good word for Under Secretary Sherman. He’s in the back, so I 

guess all we get to do, really, is give him a little shout-out. But, 

he’s really been out there listening to the Oregon folks, as well, 

and, I think, getting a sense of how urgent it is that we get this 

put together and get it enacted. So, I want to say, even though he’s 

in the back of the room, a big thanks to Under Secretary Sherman. 

Glad he’s at his post. 

Chief Tidwell, one other area, and that’s a question about hazardous fuels reduction and the emphasis on the wildland-urban 

interface. Now, suffice it to say we know—at least in our part of 
28 

the world, and I think it’s true, you know, generally—there’s millions, and millions of acres that we got to go in there and thin out. 

It is absolutely essential if we’re going to get the forests healthy 

again. You have included more funding in the various accounts 

that deal with it. All very constructive. 

But, the agency has indicated a desire to focus on the wildlandurban interface. I want to just unpack this for a minute and sort 

of stipulate right out up front that there is no difference of opinion, 

on this side, you know, of dais, about how important the wildlandurban interface is, and the community wildfire protection plan. Let 

me just stipulate, these are very, very critical priorities, and I support the efforts to go there. 

My concern, though, is, in my State, there are millions and millions of acres in the back country. They’re in the back country, and 

they are in urgent need of restoration work. For example, to strike 

that balance, the kind of balance that we would like to have, so you 

can get sawlogs to the mills, biomass going, protect, you know, old 

growth—if we’re going to protect the old growth, we’ve got to go 

into some of this, you know, back country and do some, you know, 

very serious, you know, thinning work. We’ve had forestry experts 

come to the Timber and Forestlands Subcommittee, that I chair, 

and say the same thing. 

So, what can we do, knowing how important the wildland-urban 

interface part of this is, to make sure that that’s not the only hazardous fuel reduction work that’s done and that we also have a 

very aggressive effort going in the back country? Your thoughts? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for the question. You know, our 

increased focus on the wildland-urban interface with this budget 

request is—the recognition is, that is—that is the place where we 

have the most difficulty with suppressing fires, just because we 

lose some options with the close proximity of homes and communities. 

It’s—I think it’s essential that we get in those areas and we do 

the treatments that need to be done. The majority of that has to 

be mechanical. You’re actually going to see—with this increased 

focus in the wildland-urban interface areas, you’re going to see 

more mechanical treatments, because it’s much more difficult for 

us to use prescribed fire in those situations. So, there’s going to be 

more mechanical work done, more biomass, more sawlogs that’ll 

need to be removed, you know, out of that effort. 

But, the focus with our hazardous fuels on that will just increase 

that focus. We’re still going to be doing some hazardous fuels work 

in other areas. But, we also—through our integrated resource restoration work, we also can, you know, change the condition class 

of landscapes and be able to—when we’re doing restoration work, 

we’re also accomplishing hazardous fuels work, we’re also reducing 

the severity of a catastrophic fire, we’re also improving—increasing 

the effectiveness of suppression tactics by doing this work. 

So, you have to really take all of it together. It’s difficult—if you 

just look at any one piece of this budget, you can say, ‘‘Well, OK. 

How are going to treat the back country?’’ But, if you look at it together, I think—I feel very confident that this is a good mix, to be 

able to do both types of work that need to be done, and be able to 

work together on it. 
29 

Senator WYDEN. I just want you to know how strongly I feel 

about this. A lot of the folks in the back country, in Oregon and 

around the country, almost believe they’re an afterthought. You 

know, they say, ‘‘I know the population is in the area. The people 

with the nice homes are in the, you know, urban area.’’ We just 

cannot have this situation, where it seems that most of the discussion, most of the focus goes to the urban—you know, urban interface. That’s why I wanted it understood that I’ll fight like crazy for 

those kinds of thinning programs. I think you make a good case. 

But, it does seem, in a lot of the discussion, that hardly anybody 

mentions, you know, the back country. We’ve got to get, you know, 

in there. That’s one of the reasons the eastside, you know, program 

is so important. So, we’ll be following up with you on that, as well. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, just to follow up, another opportunity 

there for the eastside forests—and I fully expect we’ll see a project 

proposal under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Fund—to have that focus on addressing fuels, wildland fire concerns. That’s a great opportunity, and I know—with the collaborative efforts that are in place that you referenced earlier, I expect 

those folks will be able to submit a very good proposal, and I would 

encourage them to do that, because it’d be another opportunity for 

them get additional funding and also to be able to focus on the type 

of work that you’re describing. 

Senator WYDEN. I appreciate that. There’s no question that having proposals that add up, that can be a model, you know, for the 

country, are critically, you know, important. You have a lot of challenges. You know, a lot of us from the rural West have ideas about 

it. We’re going to work very closely with you, we’re going to work 

closely with Under Secretary Sherman. This is a key, kind of, time. 

Look forward to continuing this discussion. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr.—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Chief Tidwell, we appreciate 

you spending time with us this morning. I will tell you, I leave the 

hearing this morning perhaps more frustrated than when I came 

in. I think you heard my—the frustration in my tone, in my comments, in—particularly in the opening remarks that I made. 

But, I’m—I haven’t gotten the answers that I had hoped to hear, 

in terms of, you know, the expected level of timber harvest, how 

we meet the TLUMP, when we can expect the transition plan, how 

it’s going to be funded. I mean, we’ve been trying to work with you 

to determine whether or not these grants through Forest Service 

RDA might be available to at least the 4 applicants. We haven’t 

gotten certainty on that. We want some real commitment. Hopefully the administration will be there, the Forest Service will be 

there, in defending the Tongass roadless. 

I appreciate your perspective on the stewardship contracts and 

the opportunities that you think that they present. I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I still remain concerned that if we don’t have 

those revenues to direct to the Treasury to offset those stewardship 

contract costs, then you have to rely on appropriations. If there’s 

no appropriations, then where are we? 

So, I recognize that there are continued complications, issues 

that we face with these as we look to these sales. I would hope that 
30 

we would continue to have a very open door in discussing, from the 

agency, with Alaskans, the concerns that so many have about what 

we’re seeing with the Tongass. Again, I will reiterate my concern 

about a transition plan and how we can be realistic about this plan 

while—at the same time, recognize that we may not have individuals to implement the plan. Senator Wyden, in his comments, also 

indicated, you know, if we don’t have the folks within the industry 

that can hang on, then you aren’t able to do the retooling that I 

think we recognize is the direction that we’re taking. 

So, we’ve got a lot of work to do in front of us, and hopefully you 

will remain as committed to returning our phone calls and sitting 

down with us as you have been in the past. We’ve got some things 

that we’ve got to do and, I believe, must do in very, very short 

order. 

So, with that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(31) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time the hearing went to press:] 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. I see that the budget proposes an increase of $8 million to finish the 

travel management planning process. Do you believe this level of funding is adequate to complete the job? 

Question 2. Approximately what percentage of your law enforcement effort is currently dedicated to off-highway vehicle issues and conflicts? 

Question 3. What percentage of your law enforcement encounters is off-highway 

vehicle-related? 

Question 4. How do you plan to coordinate the climate adaptation initiatives described in the budget with other agencies? 

Question 5. Does the Forest Service plan to continue a full annualized forest inventory and analysis (FIA) program in New Mexico in FY2011? 

Question 6. In 2007, the GAO found that the Forest Service did not have an adequate system to track the costs and revenues of timber sales and stewardship contracts (GAO-07-764). Has the Forest Service developed a formal system to track obligations, expenditures, and revenues on a contract-by-contract basis? 

Question 7. When does the Administration expect to finalize a comprehensive 

wildfire aviation strategy? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund—I’m pleased to see increased 

funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which assists with preserving 

important public values. The program ensures funding for the Forest Service, among 

other land agencies, to acquire inholdings and other priority land parcels from willing sellers, thereby reducing management costs, protecting wildlife habitat, reducing 

the risks and costs of catastrophic wildfires, and ensuring public access and recreation. The program has ensured millions for Forest Service projects in Oregon alone, 

including places in the Columbia River Gorge and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. There is a significant economic impact from the recreation that is enhanced by these land acquisitions. Active outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion 

annually to the U.S. economy and supports 6.5 million jobs across the country, including 73,000 jobs in Oregon. I am a supporter of legislation to fully fund the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. In addition to Congressional efforts, how else can we 

ensure that consistent and robust funding for this program will continue each year, 

allowing a lasting outdoor recreation legacy with economic opportunities for future 

generations? 

Question 2. Pacific Crest Trail/Trail Systems Funding—I know that a number of 

items in the Forest Service budget have been moved around into new approaches. 

However, the Agency failed to include funds in this year’s budget, as in the FY10 

budget, for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Administration of the National 

Scenic Trails is an important agency responsibility and much work remains to be 

done on these trails. Can you explain the lack of funding for this trail and what 

the agency is doing to plan for timely completion of protection of the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail experience through acquisition of land and easements over 

time, as directed in the National Trails System Act as amended? 

Question 3. Climate Change—I’m pleased to see the Agency’s focus in this budget 

on making the nation’s forests more resilient and resistant to climate change. America’s natural resources provide tremendous ecosystem services and economic benefits 
32 

to communities across the nation-and safeguarding these resources from climate 

change directly protects key elements of our economy. Can you explain your plan 

for ensuring the Forest Service’s budget invests in protecting key ecosystem services 

and job-creating activities from changing climates? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR LINCOLN

Question 1. Can you tell me the expected timber outputs for the Ouachita and 

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas under the proposed Integrated Resource Restoration program? As you know, these forests are extremely efficient in 

offering timber for sale. Will the Integrated Resource Restoration program include 

specific output targets for traditional multiple use commodities? 

Question 2. How did the agency come to the conclusion that all projects implemented using National Forest Timber Management funds needed to generate a positive return to the treasury? Numerous other programs, including recreation programs, receive more in appropriations than they return in user fees. How does the 

use of Stewardship contracts resolve these issues? 

Question 3. How many Stewardship contracts have you awarded in Arkansas? 

Were they Integrated Resource Service Contracts or Integrated Resource Timber 

Contracts? Did these contracts include convertible forest products including sawlogs, 

or were they entirely non-commercial in nature? 

Question 4. You mentioned in your testimony that the Forest Service will still 

track outputs. I’m concerned that this implies you will not plan outputs for important programs such as timber, grazing, and recreational use. Will you? In regards 

to timber in particular, I think it is important for the agency to report accurately 

on the wood products it is producing. Would you support an effort to have the agency report on the percent of wood fiber sold which is convertible into traditional wood 

products such as lumber and paper, and that which is sold for biomass energy applications? 

Question 5. I appreciate the efforts you’ve made to direct funding for Fiscal Year 

2010 to the timber sale program on the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National 

Forests. Can you report to me on how implementation of this spending is going at 

the forest level? Is the agency working to direct carry over and other available funds 

to these forests so that they can continue to perform at a high level? 

Question 6. I appreciate the Administration’s efforts to fund the Maumelle Water 

Excellence Project under the Forest Legacy program. Is the project high enough on 

the priority list to be assured of funding in Fiscal Year 2011? 

Question 7. You mentioned how important it is to retain the forest products infrastructure to help defray the costs of forest management. I agree. I don’t think you 

can succeed in retaining this infrastructure unless you have a plan in place to do 

so. Would you agree to work with me to ensure that the agency has a national plan 

in place that ensures that each unit of the National Forest System has a complete 

picture of the wood-using industry that is nearby and can help implement forest 

management on those forests? 

Question 8. In today’s hearing you stated more than once that you believe Stewardship Contracts were a better tool for the Ouachita National Forest than the timber sale contract. The forest sells 100 MMBF of sawtimber and pulpwood each year. 

It is one of 10 forests in the country, according to your staff, that were above costs 

in 2008-2009. Are you suggesting that in 2011 these type sales (vegetation management) should be part of a stewardship contract with few if any commercial sales 

using timber sale contracts? 

Question 9. In your testimony, you stated that in 2011 you would move ahead 

with the integrated resource line item funding approach and that the target would 

be acres treated but you would also report MBF and other data. Since acres treated 

can be assigned to almost any activity will this further dilute accountability for responsible unit costs and providing wood essential to maintain mill infrastructure? 

a.Will restoration plans be prepared on a landscape basis (10,000 to 50,000 acres) 

and then multiple stewardship contracts and/or timber sale contracts be awarded 

within the landscape? 

b.Will the increased use of ‘‘best value’’ or ‘‘sole source’’ contracts increase shortages at some mills and over abundance at others? 

Question 10. As the Chief of the Forest Service, do you believe your agency should 

manage the pine forests on the southern coastal plains to keep them healthy, prevent catastrophic beetle attacks, and meet the social and economic needs of the 

stakeholders? 

Question 11. During your testimony, you frequently mentioned how the stewardship contract and integrated resource line item would help the agency. I am concerned that the agency perceives things differently than its customers. It is my un-
33 

derstanding that most purchasers of your timber make subsequent marketing decisions which, in most cases, represent the margin between profit and loss on their 

sales. How do you see this program helping the loggers and mill owners who have 

substantial, multi-million dollar investments in machinery and equipment designed 

specifically to produce certain higher value products? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR SANDERS

Question 1. I am strongly supportive of the proposed budget’s $5 million for the 

Community Wood Energy Program. I was joined by seven of my colleagues on a letter to the Administration seeking this funding, and I thank the Administration for 

including this means of assisting communities to develop biomass energy projects. 

Since this would be the first year the Community Wood Energy Program is to be 

funded, could you share the Forest Service’s perspective on how it will work and 

how it will benefit communities, including rural communities, across the country? 

Question 2. White-Nose Syndrome is a wildlife health crisis of grave concern to 

Vermont, the larger Northeast, and the nation. Vermont has lost at least 95 percent 

of its bats since White-Nose Syndrome was first observed within its borders, according to a recent article (‘‘Bad news for bats: Deadly white-nose syndrome still spreading’’, Scientific American, February 20, 2010). Since the first known case occurred 

in 2006 in New York, confirmed cases of White-Nose Syndrome have shown up in 

ten states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Given the decimation of bat populations that we have seen in the past few years, it is highly likely 

that White-Nose Syndrome will continue to spread to some of the largest and most 

diverse bat colonies in the nation. If this happens, we risk the possibility of extinction of several bat species. We need discrete and dedicated federal funding available 

for combating White-Nose Syndrome and containing its spread so we can restore our 

bat population and maintain their vital function, such as insect control, which helps 

our forests and farms. 

I, along with 12 other Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives, 

sent a letter to the Department seeking FY2010 funding for researching and eliminating the White-Nose Syndrome which is afflicting bats in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, most recently the South, and possibly elsewhere in the country. Congress did 

provide $1.9 million dollars for this for FY2010. I understand there are some existing Fish and Wildlife and US Geological Survey programs that may provide FY2011 

funding for White-Nose Syndrome; however it is unclear how much discrete funding 

White-Nose Syndrome research and control will actually receive. What resources 

will be available in the FY2011 budget for cave ecosystem protection and research 

to combat White-Nose Syndrome? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR SHAHEEN

Question 1. I support the Administration’s efforts for land conservation and its 

commitment to growing the Forest Legacy program, which is receiving a 32% increase from last year’s appropriated levels. Last year, I led efforts with Senators 

Leahy, Snowe and Burr to support increased funding for important federal land conservations programs, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and 

the Forest Legacy Program. 

The Forest Legacy program is very important to New Hampshire and I was 

pleased that two of our projects were included in the national priorities list. Do you 

plan to continue to grow the Forest Legacy Program in subsequent budget years? 

Question 2. The Interagency Pass Program was created by the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act and authorized by Congress in December 2004. This 

pass program was created to make it easier for the elderly and disabled to visit national parks and forests and it currently provides discounted use rates for seniors 

for activities on Forest Service lands. However, I was troubled to hear about a Forest Service proposal that would reduce of the discounts from 50% down to about 

10% for programs and services operated by Forest Service. I have already heard 

from New Hampshire constituents on this matter and I am concerned about eliminating the opportunity for our senior and disabled citizens to enjoy our public lands 

at a more affordable rate. What is the current status with this proposal and what 

is the rationale for reducing the discount from 50% to 10%? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Tongass Retooling Aid—The Tongass, as recently as 2000, supported more than 

3,000 timber jobs. Now, a generous estimate is that the industry is supporting about 

400 jobs given all the delays in timber sales resulting from appeals, suits and 
34 

changes in forest plans. To help maintain employment, last year I introduced a 

Tongass Timber Retooling and Restructuring Act to help timber-dependent businesses retool to either enter new economic activities not dependent on timber, or to 

change their processes to produce products and services dependent on less timber 

or smaller-growth timber. Unfortunately the bill has not come up for a hearing in 

another committee in the Senate. 

Question 1. Since the goal of the bill seems in keeping with the Forest Service’s 

pending ‘‘transition plan’’ for Tongass activities, can the Forest Service utilize the 

Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development Administration to make loans to 

businesses to help them retool to use less timber or to enter new economic fields? 

There is an urgent need for economic assistance to save many of the remaining 

timber jobs in the region. I know at least four firms have submitted proposals seeking such aid from the Forest Service/ RDA. 

Question 2. Can you tell the status of your consideration of the requests and the 

timetable for potential assistance, if there is any willingness to grant such aid? 

Tongass Futures Roundtable—From a conversation we had late last year I know 

you hope, as do I, that the Tongass Futures Roundtable, consisting of environmental, business and a wide assortment of business leaders in the region will be 

able to reach consensus on a plan to make enough timber available either under 

the federal or state system to fuel a viable industry, while also selecting more lands 

for protection and restoration in the forest. 

The Roundtable, however, has met for three years and outside of supporting the 

Timber Retooling bill and beach fringe thinning plans, it has yet to reach agreement 

on a broader plan. 

Even if the roundtable were to reach agreement tomorrow, it would take considerable time for Congress to review and implement any such major revision to Tongass 

land policies, at least based on the time it took to pass and implement the Alaska 

lands act in 1980 that created more than 5 million acres of protected lands in the 

Tongass, and the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 that hiked that number considerably. 

Question 3. What does the Forest Service intend to do to keep an industry alive 

long enough for Roundtable recommendations to perhaps aid it? 

Roadless Policy—I appreciate your commitment to defend the Tongass Roadless 

settlement and desire to develop a way to address roadless on a local level. 

Question 4. Since the Tongass Roadless settlement was worked out in an Alaska 

court and memorialized in the Tongass Land Management Plan which was worked 

out at the local level (also agreed to by the courts), is there any reason for me to 

worry that the people of the Tongass have anymore reason to worry than say the 

people of Idaho who worked out Roadless in that state? 

Question 5. Can you assure me that the Secretary of Agriculture will honor the 

commitment that you made during your testimony at the February 24th Energy and 

Natural Resource hearing? 

Roadless Lawsuit—I also appreciate your commitment to defend the Tongass 

Roadless court settlement. 

Question 6. Can you check to make sure that the Department of Agriculture, the 

Department of Justice, and the White House will also make a similar commitment 

to me? 

Commercial Timber Sales vs. Stewardship Sales—Forest Service staff have repeatedly communicated during Senate staff briefings, that only those timber sales 

that will return more revenue than they cost will be developed. In the 1990’s those 

sales were called ‘‘below-cost’’ timber sales. 

Question 7. Am I correct in my understanding that this budget proposes to end 

the use of commercial timber sales that do not return more revenue than they cost 

to plan, prepare, and sell? 

Question 8. Should we expect that you will hold other contracts, such as stewardship timber contracts to that same standard? 

Question 9. Can you provide the Committee a list of every stewardship contract 

implemented over the last five years that returned more revenue receipts to the 

Treasury than they cost the Forest Service to plan, prepare and sell? 

The preparation of a Stewardship Contract by its very nature takes a considerable 

amount of time and funding that is not charged against the cost of accomplishing 

the non-timber work when the Forest Service balances the cost of projects against 

the value of the timber to be removed. 
35 

Question 10. Would you provide me with a detailed accounting of the agency’s 

costs to develop, prepare, appraise, offer and administer the White Mountain Stewardship Contract on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest? 

Question 11. Will you provide me with a detailed description of the monetary and 

non-monetary benefits of that stewardship contract? 

Question 12. Can you also provide me a timeline of how long each of the following 

steps took to accomplish: public consultation, NEPA, sale preparation, contract preparation, and award? 

Question 13. It is my understanding that the Forest Service is considering terminating the White Mountain Stewardship Contract because contract costs have escalated too high. What is the situation with that contract? 

Question 14. Am I correct in my recollection that the Forest Service had to selffund a million dollar bond to cover its liability in the event the agency defaulted 

that contract? 

Question 15. Was that cost considered as part of the balance of costs and revenues? How would your ′′no below-cost′′ criteria allow for that to happen on future 

stewardship contracts? 

Question 16. You have indicated that you will use commercial timber sale contracts if they are above-cost. Can you help us understand what criteria the Washington Office will use to consider a commercial timber sale request in an out-year 

budget from a ‘‘below-cost’’ forest? It would seem to me that it would be impossible 

for those forests to provide any assurance the sale will be above-cost by the end of 

the convoluted process you have and are putting in place. How will that work exactly? 

Question 17. In 2005 and 2006 your staff prepared a budget analysis on the cost 

and revenues of each major resource program in the Forest Service. Then Budget 

Director Lenise Lago delivered a very detailed report in a very short time. Would 

you have your staff update that report to include FY 2009 and FY 2010? 

The Forest Service web-site on stewardship contracting includes the following 

statement about stewardship contracting: Does stewardship contracting replace the 

commercial timber sale program? 

No. Stewardship contracting is not a program, but a tool for the contracting toolbox to accomplish work on the land as part of the Healthy Forests Initiative and 

to achieve broad land management goals. 

Question 18. Given this budget proposal (including the defunding of road construction and road reconstruction); is your web-site statements on stewardship contracting still accurate? 

FLAME—Last year Congress authorized the agency to develop a FLAME account 

to pay for the 3% of the fires that result in 95% of the fire suppression costs the 

agency has testified to for the last decade. 

Question 19. Chief do you believe that constitutionally the job of the Administration is to implement the laws that Congress passes? 

Question 20. Can you help me understand why the Forest Service has chosen to 

ignore the FLAME Act that was passed last year and continues to propose a separate reserve account to pay for fire fighting? 

Question 21. Do you continue to believe that 3% of the fires cause 90 to 95% of 

the agency’s fire suppression costs? 

Question 22. Can you provide me an explanation of why you have not requested 

that 90 to 95% of the requested fire suppression funding within the FLAME account? 

Question 23. Given the budget you have proposed for FY 2011; what will happen 

if you experience another $2 billion fire season? 

Aircraft Modernization—The missing, long awaited Aviation Plan for Replacing 

the Existing contract heavy aircraft firefighting fleet: In late FY 2009 the Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on the agency’s plans to modernize its firefighting aircraft, particularly its air tanker fleet. This report contained nine recommendations; the Forest Service has completed actions on one and is taking actions on the other eight. 

Question 24. What are the most important criteria by which you will judge a new, 

modern platform? 

Question 25. How will you make the decision to contract new platforms? 

Question 26. Who will have the final decision on what air tankers are approved 

for contract and what is that decision based upon? 

Question 27. Assuming airworthiness of any new platform is the most important 

criteria for approving a new platform, does the Forest Service have an ′′engineer of 

record′′ who can certify airworthiness has been met? 
36 

Question 28. Given the current realities of constrained budgets, possibly even flat 

budgets, does the foreseeable horizon mean that modernization of equipment including heavy air tankers and acquisition of new equipment must also meet cost-containment or even cost-reduction goals? 

Question 29. The Forest Service should promote a modernization of the fleet of 

aircraft to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness, do you agree? 

Question 30. If vendors offer to modernize their fleet with newer, more efficient 

equipment, and maintain them in the future with sufficient capital investment, 

would the Forest Service reject that approach? 

Question 31. Isn’t some redundancy in the aerial firefighting fleet prudent to 

avoid a fleet-wide shutdown if uniform aircraft type is found to be deficient for any 

reason? 

Question 32. If it is, than why is the agency hell-bent on driving the existing aircraft out of existence and hell-bent on the C-130J-only approach to resolving this 

problem? 

Question 33. Given that a more agile and modern tanker fleet is essential to meeting strategic wild land firefighting needs, is there an increasing need for rapid and 

load efficient aerial responses to fires? 

Question 34. Do you believe a new, modern platform aircraft should be able to operate from nearly any size airfield, allowing them to operate anywhere in the US? 

Question 35. Can you assure me that the C-130J can operate out of every one of 

the airfields currently utilized by the Forest Service and BLM for aerial delivery of 

slurry? 

Question 36. If airfield flexibility is an important component to a strategic aerial 

response, shouldn’t the Forest Service include that in its consideration of maintaining fleet diversity? 

Question 37. In assessing efficiency and cost-effectiveness, do you look at retardant delivery cost/flight of the equipment? 

Question 38. The large airtanker strategy report that the Forest Service has been 

working on for years was supposed to be submitted to Congress 60 days after enactment of the FY 2010 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. It is overdue. Where exactly is the report today and what date will you personally commit 

to the Committee that it will be provided to us? 

Question 39. The current fleet of large airtankers is aging rapidly. The Department’s Office of Inspector noted last summer that individual aircraft will need to 

be retired for safety reasons within a few years. Do you agree with that assessment? 

Question 40. Can you provide the Committee with the figures of the remaining 

operational service life of each of the large airtankers currently in the fleet? Please 

also provide an estimate of the number of years each aircraft could operate base on 

the five year average use data for each aircraft. 

Question 41. In 2004, the Forest Service grounded the large airtanker fleet for 

half of the fire season to develop better safety protocols. Backfilling with helitankers 

and heavy lift type 1 helicopters added $80 million to that season’s aviation costs. 

If you reconfigure your current fleet to use these types of helicopters after the large 

airtankers are retired, how much would that approach add to your annual aviation 

costs? 

Question 42. The large airtankers are primarily an initial attack resource. Eightyfive percent of your annual fire suppression expenses are consumed by the roughly 

2% of the fires that escape initial attack and become expensive, large incident fires. 

Without large airtankers how would your initial attack success rate change? 

Question 43. Based upon the cost figures from the past several fire seasons, it appears that every 0.1% improvement in initial attack success rate would save about 

$110-120 million in suppression expenses. Does that sound about right to you? 

United States Dependence on foreign mineral suppliers— On February 18th the 

Lands Letter reported that the United States Geological Survey reported: ‘‘The 

United States deepened its dependence on foreign sources of minerals in 2009, continuing a 30-year trend that some fear will only worsen as mining approvals in the 

West continue to be delayed. Meanwhile, the value of domestic mineral production 

declined by 20 percent in 2009, while the value of products domestically refined and 

processed from those minerals dropped by 25 percent, according to a report released 

this week by the U.S. Geological Survey’’. 

Question 44. Chief—the National Forests and Grasslands contain significant reserves of minerals, as well as oil and gas; are you concerned about this trend? And 

if so, what are you going to do to streamline mineral development within the National Forests and Grasslands? 
37 

Land Acquisition—The proposed budget includes a proposal to increase the land 

acquisition budget by 16% over the FY 2010 level and 48% over the FY 2009 appropriated level. 

Question 45. Chief - do you believe the Forest Service’s maintenance backlog has 

been completely eliminated as a result of the Stimulus funding your agency received 

last year? 

Question 46. Can you give me a good reason that Congress should provide you 

a single dollar more than what was funding in FY 2009 for land acquisition until 

the maintenance backlog has been completely eliminated? 

Commercial Timber Sales vs. Stewardship Sales 

Question 47. Your staff has suggested there are approximately 15 forests that are 

‘‘above cost forests.’’ Can you provide me a list of those forests? 

Question 48. If this budget proposal is accepted by Congress, how would you allocate funds from the new Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item to forests 

that are ‘‘below-cost’’ forests that believe they have an ‘‘above-cost’’ sale they may 

want to offer? 

Question 49. What are the criteria that you will use to describe your accomplishments under this Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item? 

Tongass Transition Plan—I have been in contact with Jay Jensen, the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Agriculture who oversees the Forest Service, and I gather that 

the Forest Service is working to craft a ‘‘transition plan’’ that will revise the current 

Tongass Land Management Plan to reduce old growth logging and promote timber 

harvest of small diameter trees from existing stands and second-growth areas. 

Question 50. How will it square with the requirements of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, a statute that requires the Forest Service to make enough timber available for harvest in the Tongass to meet ‘‘market demand’’? 

Human Resources—In 2002 the Forest Service proposed to move most of the agency’s human resources personnel to a National Service Center in Albuquerque, NM. 

Now we see that you have cancelled some of the early-out retirements that were 

being offered to the few remaining Human Resource specialists that had not yet 

moved to Albuquerque and there are rumors that you will not release the FY 2009 

carry-over funds back to the originating units so that you can pay for moving your 

Human resources specialists out of Albuquerque and back to the forests and regional offices from where they came. 

Question 51. If such a plan is in the making, when will this happen? 

Question 52. How much is this going to cost to accomplish? 

Question 53. Isn’t holding on to carry-over funding for a purpose other than what 

those funds were originally appropriated a breech of budget protocol? Will you be 

requesting a budget reprogramming to accomplish this? 

Question 53a. The decision to centralize HR functions must have been made in 

response to problems that were inherent in the previous, decentralized system. 

What specifically were those problems, and why are they no longer a concern? 

Please be specific because if you don’t convince me that you are familiar with those 

underlying problems, you will leave me with little confidence that they won’t recur. 

Question 54. In fact, problems with the old system were documented in numerous 

Forest Service studies and evaluations. As I understand it, some of the major problems with the previous, decentralized system was that different regions were 

classifying the same or similar positions differently, resulting in employees receiving 

different levels of compensation for the same job. Also, disciplinary practices differed 

from region to region, so that such practices were applied inequitably. How will you 

assure that these situations won’t reoccur? 

Question 55. The decision to centralize HR functions was preceded by studies that 

were shared with the Congress as the agency sought to justify this approach. No 

such studies have been presented to the Committee to justify going back to a decentralized approach. Where are they? 

Question 56. If the Agency returns to decentralized HR functions, numerous Forest Service employees will need to be trained annually to provide these functions. 

What is your estimate of the annual cost of such training, and how will it differ 

from your current training costs in this area? 

Question 57. What will the Forest Service do with the space currently occupied 

by the HR employees in the Albuquerque Service Center? If your current lease will 

need to be modified, what will be the cost to the government? 

Question 58. he most common complaint lodged against the Albuquerque Service 

Center is that common and easy HR functions (eg, Hiring) take too long. That is 

different than taking the necessary time to get the complicated and broadscale 

issues (eg, job classifications) right. Have you looked at an option that returns the 
38 

easier, less specialized functions to the field, keeping the more complex functions 

under the centralized purview of HR specialists? 

Question 59. I am concerned that such a re-organization could delay the processing of the many EEO and civil rights complaints currently languishing in Albuquerque. Would you provide the Committee a list of each such complaint which 

shows in general terms the type of complaint it is and how long it as been since 

the complaint was filed. And then a second list with the same information that show 

the number of complaints that were in process for the five years before HR was first 

moved to the Service Center. 

Question 60. The agency has agreements with the Bureau of Land Management 

for some programs like the Joint Fire Science Program that carry-over funds must 

go back to the joint fire science program for redistribution or to pay for the projects 

that were awarded but not yet completed. Will you commit to me that you will order 

your Budget Director to return the carry-over funds back to the joint fire science 

program immediately? 

Joint Fire Science Program—Congress has appropriated approximately $8 million 

per year to the Forest Service and $6 to $8 million per year to the Bureau of Land 

Management to allow the two agencies to undertake cooperative research on fire. 

Question 61. At present the BLM has 3 employees stationed in Boise, Idaho that 

it funds to help run the program and the Forest Service has but one employee that 

it funds for that program. Given that the Forest Service gets more funding, why 

does it only have one employee in Boise it is willing to pay for? 

In 2005 the Chief made a number of commitments to the Bureau of Land Management in a letter to that agency regarding the Joint Fire Science Program that appear to not have been fully carried out. 

Question 62. Have you and are you still providing quarterly updates that account 

for each joint fire project that has been awarded to the Forest Service? If so, please 

provide the Committee with copies of those quarterly reports. 

Question 63. That letter said the Chief understands the multi-year nature of the 

Joint Fire Science program and ‘‘will make every effort to respect the Joint Fire 

Science Board on carry-over for these multi-year projects’’. You have had your budget since November 2009 for Fiscal Year 2010 why have the research joint fire 

science carry-over funds not been released? 

Question 64. The letter indicated that the Washington Office Research and Development group will coordinate with the Regions, Stations, and Areas to verify the 

carryover for each project and ensure the carryover list is highlighted to Washington 

Office Program and Budget Analysis staff for the purpose of ensuring steps are 

taken to re-allocate the Joint Fire Science Program carry-over funds and to get them 

distributed in a timely manner. Given the near 5 month lag in getting this done, 

would you please explain what the Chief meant by ‘‘timely’’? 

Question 65. Given the apparent lack of interest in this program, displayed 

through the Forest Service’s unwillingness to help track the funds and manage the 

reporting of these funds, is there any reason this program, and its funding, 

shouldn’t be handed over to the Bureau of Land Management? 

Montana Roadless Area Management—As Regional Forester you made the decision to manage all Roadless Areas in Region One as if they are wilderness until 

such time as Congress directs otherwise. 

Question 66. s there any truth to the rumor that you may direct that policy be 

applied in all regions? 

Question 67. Given that many of these areas now contain roads that are used by 

the public and also by federal fire fighters; are you not concerned that your Region 

One Roadless Area management policy will negatively impact your agency’s ability 

to effectively carry-out initial attack of fires on those lands? 

Question 68. Can you provide me with a legal white paper which describes the 

law or regulation in which you based your Region One Roadless area management 

policy? 

Montana Wilderness Bill—Our Committee is currently negotiating the Montana 

Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and representatives of the Forest Service Washington Office and Region One’s wilderness teams have participated in those meetings. The Decision Notice for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest states: 

‘‘Tom Tidwell, the Regional Forester for the Northern Region, signed the Record of 

Decision (ROD) choosing Modified Alternative Six in the corrected Final Environmental Impact Statement as the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest on January 14, 2009.’’ 
39 

That plan indicates that the West Pioneer area are not recommended for Wilderness. Yet, Senator Testor’s bill proposes Wilderness status for that area (totaling approximately 25,000 acres). 

During a recent meeting your staff recommended enlarging the 25,000 acres proposed Wilderness in that area in the Tester bill to approximately 50,000 acres, despite the Record of Decision that you signed recommending the area does not qualify 

as Wilderness. 

Question 69. Chief, how much did it cost the agency to complete the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest Plan Revision? 

Question 70. Can you give me one good reason why your staff would have expressly recommended additional Wilderness in an area that the forest plan that you 

signed says does not qualify as Wilderness? 

Question 71. If the employees that you supervise think so little of the Forest plan 

that you signed, why should we provide the agency you oversee a single dime for 

the forest planning efforts you seek to have Congress fund? 

Question 72. What is the shelf-life of the forest plans that you are currently working to complete? Are they good for 6 months? Or a year? Or are they not worth the 

paper they are written on? 

Above-Cost Forests—In your statement at the hearing, you affirmed that you will 

only use the commercial timber sale contract tool on sales that are ‘‘above-cost’’. 

Question 73. Would you provide me a list of which forests where above cost in 

terms of their forest products programs in each of the following years: 1988, 1998; 

2008 and 2009? 

Question 74. Would you provide me a list (number of sales and volume sold) of 

the above cost timber sales on those forests that are considered to be ‘‘below-cost’’ 

forests for FY 2008, 2009, and 2010? 

Question 75. Would you provide me with your reasons for wanting to impose the 

below-cost criteria on the commercial timber sale program, but not on any of the 

other programs carried out by the Forest Service? 

Question 76. When was the last fiscal year that the Forest Service returned more 

revenue to the Treasury than it cost to operate? 

Question 77. In 2012, the counties will receive there last Secure Rural Schools 

payments. The payment history for the 25% payment program shows that commercial timber sales generated up to 97% of all payments made under that program 

in the 1960’s, 1970,s and most of the 1980’s. By law Stewardship Contracts do not 

have to share gross or net receipts with the counties. How do you think the county 

commissioners will react to a no commercial timber sale policy by your agency? 

Rain Forest Aerial Trams Alaska, Inc: We have a constituent letter from the Rain 

Forest Aerial Trams Alaska, Inc. Saying they gave the forest $41,176 on or around 

September 2, 2007 to pay the Forest Service to complete an EA on their requested 

permit and to date neither the EA nor the permit have been forthcoming. 

Question 78. Can you look into this and advise me of the status? I need to know 

if they really gave the FS the money, what they were advised the time-line might 

be to complete the work, and where in the process the EA and or permit are? 

Question 79. Additionally, it is my understanding that the permit they are requesting falls within a Roadless Area. Please explain to me, given the Secretary of 

Agriculture’s policy on development in any Roadless Area why an EA is sufficient 

and whether you will treat recreations projects in the same manner you seem to 

be treating timber projects in these areas? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. In Fiscal Year 2010, Secretary Vilsack allocated $40 million to the 

Rocky Mountain Region to combat the devastating effects of bark beetles. $10 million of that funding came from the region’s normal budget. $30 million of that funding were added to the region’s budget allocation. This was a welcome and necessary 

step toward meeting our region’s needs during this unprecedented natural disaster. 

However, I do not see a budget allocation for the Rocky Mountain Region’s disaster 

mitigation for next year. How is U.S. Forest Service going to make resources available to protect the people of Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota from the effects 

of bark beetles? 

Question 2. I recognize that some competitive programs for forest restoration are 

available. However, these funds are not committed to any one purpose or region. 

The Forest Service’ own experts projected that it would require $45 million in fiscal 

year 2010 and $55 million in fiscal year 2011to mitigate bark beetle effects in Region 2. How is the agency going to guarantee that this level of funding is provided? 
40 

Question 3. I am also concerned about the distribution of funds for bark beetle 

mitigation. I read in the USFS press release at there are 3.6 million acres of bark 

beetle infestation in Colorado. But I noticed that no one talked about the 3.4 million 

acres of infestation in Wyoming. And no one talked about Colorado receiving $30 

million of the funding for bark beetle mitigation, when Wyoming only received $8 

million. I understand that Colorado may have more roads to clear, and that there 

could be some discrepancy there. However, Wyoming’s watersheds, recreation, and 

wildfire needs are no less than our neighbors to the south. If these two states have 

nearly equal affected acreage, why is your agency’s strategy for addressing infestation not equitable? 

Question 4. Sawmills are dwindling in the American West. There is only one left 

in Wyoming. America and rural communities across the West cannot afford to lose 

any of these business. Your agency will be without management partners during a 

forest health crisis. How is the Administration promoting the health of the forest 

products industry? 

a. How are you supporting your partners during these tough times? 

Question 5. You have proposed that nearly all timber harvest be facilitated 

through stewardship contracts, rather than timber sales. I am concerned that this 

new proposal ignores business conditions for the sawmills operating in today’s economic climate. The industry is hard-hit by the recession and increasingly tight lumber markets. Raising capital to change sawmill capacity and operations during this 

economic downturn could cripple small businesses. The Administration may have 

changed in Washington, but the reality of the forest products industry remains. How 

will your proposal for Integrated Resource Restoration to promote the success of 

sawmills we have in operation today? 

Question 6. The Forest Service budget proposal would eliminate funds for constructing or upgrading roads. How do you expect to meet the President’s goals for 

renewable energy generation and transmission if you cannot access new lands to 

construct windmills or powerlines? 

a. Should we assume that your agency plans to refuse all renewable energy development? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR MCCAIN

Question 1. Stewardship contracts are a crucial tool to the Forest Service to accomplish effective, quality forest restoration in partnership with industry that can 

spur industry investment and create rural economic opportunities. Specifically these 

contracts are attractive because they offer industry some certainty of supply, enabling investment in costly wood processing infrastructure. But such contracts require a substantial obligation of funds to protect the contractor’s investment if the 

government later cancels and rarely, if ever, is the value of the timber removed sufficient to pay for the work. Both of these financial challenges are particularly stark 

in the southwest where the current state of the wood-based industry is one that is 

nearly extinct and few suitable markets exist for the small-diameter wood, the primary by-product of restoration. The Forest Service budget calls for more stewardship contracts. Please explain how the Forest Service will address these financial 

challenges associated with Stewardship contracts going forward, particularly as they 

apply in the southwest. 

Question 2. Arizona is the home of the White Mountain Stewardship Contract, the 

only active long-term (10-year) US Forest Service stewardship contract - and the 

first of its kind in the United States. This contract has seen nearly 100,000 acres 

of NEPA work completed with no lawsuits and restoration thinning costs have been 

cut in half. The contract has generated over 450 new full-time jobs, and is helping 

build back a severely depressed rural regional economy. Despite these successes and 

the Forest Service emphasis on stewardship contracts, it has been reported that the 

Forest Service is not planning to fully implement the contract in FY 2011. Is this 

true? What are the Forest Service’s plans and budget regarding the White Mountain 

Stewardship Contract in FY 2011? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR SESSIONS

Question 1. Why is the S&PF Cooperative Fire Protection and Wild land Fire 

Management - State Fire Assistance reduced by $25.04 million from the FY 2010 

Enacted Budget? 

Question 2. Why is the Forest Legacy Program increased by over 30% while other 

programs that serve thousands of non-industrial private landowners are flat to 

lower than the FY 2010 budget? As an example, the Alabama Forestry Commission 

receives about $400,000 annually (requires a 50/50 match) to assist forest land-
41 

owners with the management of their forest. There are over 400,000 forest landowners in the state, the current funding falls short of the states need. 

Question 3. With the emphasis and importance on Forest Health, why is funding being cut by over $7 million? 

QUESTIONS FOR TOM TIDWELL FROM SENATOR LINCOLN

Question 1. Can you tell me the expected timber outputs for the Ouachita and 

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas under the proposed Integrated Resource Restoration program? As you know, these forests are extremely efficient in 

offering timber for sale. Will the Integrated Resource Restoration program include 

specific output targets for traditional multiple use commodities? 

Question 2. How did the agency come to the conclusion that all projects implemented using National Forest Timber Management funds needed to generate a positive return to the treasury? Numerous other programs, including recreation programs, receive more in appropriations than they return in user fees. How does the 

use of Stewardship contracts resolve these issues? 

Question 3. How many Stewardship contracts have you awarded in Arkansas? 

Were they Integrated Resource Service Contracts or Integrated Resource Timber 

Contracts? Did these contracts include convertible forest products including sawlogs, 

or were they entirely non-commercial in nature? 

Question 4. You mentioned in your testimony that the Forest Service will still 

track outputs. I’m concerned that this implies you will not plan outputs for important programs such as timber, grazing, and recreational use. Will you? In regards 

to timber in particular, I think it is important for the agency to report accurately 

on the wood products it is producing. Would you support an effort to have the agency report on the percent of wood fiber sold which is convertible into traditional wood 

products such as lumber and paper, and that which is sold for biomass energy applications? 

Question 5. I appreciate the efforts you’ve made to direct funding for Fiscal Year 

2010 to the timber sale program on the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National 

Forests. Can you report to me on how implementation of this spending is going at 

the forest level? Is the agency working to direct carry over and other available funds 

to these forests so that they can continue to perform at a high level? 

Question 6. I appreciate the Administration’s efforts to fund the Maumelle Water 

Excellence Project under the Forest Legacy program. Is the project high enough on 

the priority list to be assured of funding in Fiscal Year 2011? 

Question 7. You mentioned how important it is to retain the forest products infrastructure to help defray the costs of forest management. I agree. I don’t think you 

can succeed in retaining this infrastructure unless you have a plan in place to do 

so. Would you agree to work with me to ensure that the agency has a national plan 

in place that ensures that each unit of the National Forest System has a complete 

picture of the wood-using industry that is nearby and can help implement forest 

management on those forests? 

Question 8. In today’s hearing you stated more than once that you believe Stewardship Contracts were a better tool for the Ouachita National Forest than the timber sale contract. The forest sells 100 MMBF of sawtimber and pulpwood each year. 

It is one of 10 forests in the country, according to your staff, that were above costs 

in 2008-2009. Are you suggesting that in 2011 these type sales (vegetation management) should be part of a stewardship contract with few if any commercial sales 

using timber sale contracts? 

Question 9. In your testimony, you stated that in 2011 you would move ahead 

with the integrated resource line item funding approach and that the target would 

be acres treated but you would also report MBF and other data. Since acres treated 

can be assigned to almost any activity will this further dilute accountability for responsible unit costs and providing wood essential to maintain mill infrastructure? 

a.Will restoration plans be prepared on a landscape basis (10,000 to 50,000 acres) 

and then multiple stewardship contracts and/or timber sale contracts be awarded 

within the landscape? 

b.Will the increased use of ‘‘best value’’ or ‘‘sole source’’ contracts increase shortages at some mills and over abundance at others? 

Question 10. As the Chief of the Forest Service, do you believe your agency should 

manage the pine forests on the southern coastal plains to keep them healthy, prevent catastrophic beetle attacks, and meet the social and economic needs of the 

stakeholders? 

Question 11. During your testimony, you frequently mentioned how the stewardship contract and integrated resource line item would help the agency. I am con-
42 

cerned that the agency perceives things differently than its customers. It is my understanding that most purchasers of your timber make subsequent marketing decisions which, in most cases, represent the margin between profit and loss on their 

sales. How do you see this program helping the loggers and mill owners who have 

substantial, multi-million dollar investments in machinery and equipment designed 

specifically to produce certain higher value products? 

Æ