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

66–580 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–20 

PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR 

THE FOREST SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

MARCH 3, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

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 ............................................... 2 

Poling, Jan, Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, American Forest & Paper Association ......................................................................... 34 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................ 3 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 37 

(1) 

PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 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. Why don’t we go ahead and get started. Senator 

Murkowski is on her way here but asked us to proceed without her. 

Today’s hearing is to consider the President’s proposal for the 

Forest Service’s fiscal year 2012 budget. We welcome Chief Tidwell, 

who has been before this committee many times before. We welcome him back. We appreciate him coming to testify. 

The budget is tight. This proposal would cut the Forest Service’s 

discretionary budget by nearly $180 million. It would significantly 

impact a number of important programs and cut staffing levels to 

the lowest level in decades. 

I commend the Administration for its proposal to fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and also the 

FLAME Wildfire Suppression Fund which are important programs 

that were recently enacted with strong support of this committee. 

The proposal to create an Integrated Resource Restoration Account 

has been improved from last year and would be a positive step to 

increase land management efficiency and effectiveness. 

I also support the Administration’s commitment to the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, which will enable high-priority land acquisition projects to proceed with broad local support in the large 

majority of the States that are represented on this committee. 

However, I also have concerns with some of the proposals in the 

budget. One of those is the proposal to use discretionary program 

funds for County Payments instead of mandatory funding which 

we, of course, have had in recent years. 

I’m also concerned about the cut to the chronically underfunded 

Land Ownership Management program, which funds work on land 

exchanges, on boundary surveys, rights-of-way for electric lines and 

pipelines and communication lines and other critical infrastructure. 

I have a number of questions related to some of these issues 

which I will hope to get to during the question period. Let me see 
2 

if Senator Murkowski wanted to make any statement before we call 

on you, Chief Tidwell. 

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

FROM ALASKA 

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

Chief. My apologies for being tardy this morning. 

I want to welcome you to the hearing, Chief Tidwell. I must tell 

you how glad I am that you came through your medical scare and 

apparently are doing well. Hopefully we won’t chase you out of here 

too hard. I know that your job is not an easy 1. I know that the 

challenges that face the Forest Service and your leadership team 

are fairly daunting. 

Once again your agency is recommending some changes to the 

budget structure including the combination of a significant number 

of programs in an integrated resource restoration account. But, 

given the difficulty the Forest Service seems to be having accomplishing work under the existing FY10 and FY11 budget formulation, perhaps I can be persuaded that this year’s proposed formulation makes sense. 

I’m concerned that the proposal to take seven line items and turn 

them into one called the ‘‘IRR’’ will make it much more difficult to 

figure how or where the funding is spent. 

I’m concerned about preeminent reauthorization of the stewardship contracting, which last year you proposed to replace commercial timber sales, and your failure to provide the four 10-year timber sale contracts in Roscoe that were promised. 

I’m also concerned about your proposal to combine the forest 

planning and inventory and monitoring line items together into one 

line item that may facilitate your draft Forest Plan rule but will 

make forest planning more expensive and perhaps more unworkable. 

We know that since 1997 over 41 million acres of national forest 

land has been damaged or destroyed by insect activities. Your 

science advisors expect that activity to continue, I understand, for 

the next decade. That equates to 19 percent of all the forested 

acres within the 13 intermountain States and as high as 33 percent 

in some States. 

We know that in FY10 the Forest Service treated less than twotenths of 1 percent of the bark beetle impacted areas. Spending 

over $101 million of funding to treat 59,000 acres makes me question whether the Forest Service is ready to be trusted with a ‘‘big 

bucket’’ approach like that which is called for in your integrated response restoration proposal. Considering the apparent difficulty the 

agency is having responding to the bark beetle epidemic, I would 

suggest that now is not the time to be acquiring new lands while 

cutting the fire assistance program and other programs that rural 

communities depend upon. The last thing your agency needs is the 

added burden of having to manage yet more lands during periods 

of declining budgets. 

In a number of places your budget recommends zeroing out entire programs but suggests that the work done in the past in those 

programs will be accomplished through other budget line items. 

But the budget provides no additional specifics. Given the difficulty 
3 

most of the programs have had meeting the accomplishment goals 

in the past year, I hope that you’ll have an opportunity this morning to more fully explain which employees and programs will cover 

the work of the programs you are recommending to be eliminated. 

In your testimony that was presented, the written testimony, you 

have a portion titled, ‘‘Jobs in Rural Communities’’. As you know 

I was born down in Ketchikan in the Tongass Forest. I was down 

in Ketchikan in January again visiting, and I would suggest to you 

that there’s a level of cynicism and certainly skepticism about the 

promises there. 

In Southeast, as you know, the big mills were gone years ago. 

But this year the second largest remaining mill in Southeast 

closed. It’s gone from over 600 employees down to 6. 

The sole remaining large mill is desperately worried about its 

timber supply. The second largest timber related construction company is gone. The largest is now down to 4 employees. So I can tell 

you, Chief, they do not believe in the ‘‘Jobs in Rural Communities’’ 

program and the 6 point vision plan for growth. They’re not buying 

into it anymore. 

We recognize that in Southeast, 98 percent of Southeast Alaska 

is owned by the Federal Government—98 percent. The vast majority of that is in the Tongass National Forest. Income is declining 

in Southeast. It’s the only region of our State where the population 

is declining and getting older. That is a direct result of what we 

have seen from the policy and management changes coming out of 

the Forest Service. 

I want to work with you to reverse these trends. We’ve had a 

chance to discuss it. I look forward to your comments on the budget 

here this morning. But please know that I remain very, very concerned about the sustainability of our communities within the 

Southeastern region and how within the Forest Service we can 

work to revive them. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony this morning and 

again, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Chief Tidwell, why don’t you go right ahead with your testimony 

and then we’ll have some questions? 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, once 

again it’s a privilege to be here today to discuss the President’s 

2012 budget request for the Forest Service. I’m joined here today 

with Kathleen Atkinson, our budget director. 

I want to thank this committee for the support you’ve shown the 

Forest Service in the past. I look forward to continuing to work 

with you to provide more of the things that American people need 

and want from their national forests and grasslands. The President’s budget is designed to support the Administration’s priorities 

for maintaining and restoring the resiliency of America’s forests. 

Additionally this budget request reflects our commitment to fiscal restraint with significant reductions to some very important 

programs. But that is to ensure that we are spending efficiently 
4 

and focusing on the priorities of the American public. The budget 

supports these priorities through 4 key objectives. 

First is to restore and sustain the forests and grasslands by increasing the collaborative efforts to build support for the restoration activities and create jobs. The budget requests full funding for 

the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank you again for your leadership with this program. 

It also increases the emphasis on protecting and enhancing watershed health with a request for 80 million for a new priority watershed and job stabilization initiative that will fund large scale 

projects that will focus on watershed restoration and job creation. 

It does propose a revised integrated resource restoration budget 

line item to align our budget structure with the work that’s being 

done on the ground. This will facilitate a much more integrated approach to developing project proposals that will result in more work 

and in more jobs. 

We will continue to track our traditional targets such as board 

feet, stream miles improved. But we will also track the overall outcomes of restoration so that we can show that we’re making a difference on a landscape scale. Then we’ll continue to incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies to determine 

how our management needs to change to increase the ecosystem’s 

resistance to the increased frequency of disturbances like fire, insect and disease outbreaks, invasives, flood and drought. 

The second objective is the budget provides for funding for our 

wild land fire suppression. This includes a level of preparedness 

that will continue our success to suppress 98 percent of wild land 

fires during initial attack. It calls for a realignment of preparedness and suppression funds that more accurately displays costs. It 

provides for the FLAME fund to increase accountability and transparency and reduce the need to transfer funds during large fires. 

It also increases the emphasis on hazardous fuel projects to reduce 

the threat of wild fire to homes and communities by doing more 

work in the wild land urban interface. 

The third objective is to increase support for community based 

conservation with the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. We’ll do 

this by helping America reconnect with the outdoors by increasing 

conservation education programs and our volunteer opportunities 

through our youth programs. It’ll build on the success of our 28 job 

corps centers by supporting a creation of a 21st century conservation service corps program to create more skills, to build skills, provide work experiences for more of our youth. 

We’ll continue to work with our States to use our State and private forestry programs to promote conservation and to help keep 

private forests forested. The budget requests an increase in our 

LWCF funding in our Forest Legacy program to use conservation 

easements and acquisition to protect critical forests but also protect 

public access that’s being threatened by land conversion. 

The fourth objective is to further support the economic opportunities in rural America by supporting the recreational opportunities 

that not only add to the quality of our lives, but support these communities with an annual expenditure of about $13 billion that is 

spent by our recreation visitors every year in these communities. 
5 

1 USDA Forest Service. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ 

We also would encourage biomass utilization and other renewable 

energy opportunities and continue to explore ways to process oil 

and gas permit applications and energy transmission proposals 

more efficiently than we have in the past. 

Then it also proposes a framework for a 5-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act with $328 million in our budget request to fund the first year. Now we want to work with the committee to consider options for mandatory funding for this program 

and also for the legislative proposal. Our goal is to increase the collaborative efforts to encourage greater public involvement in management of our national forests and grasslands. 

We want to maintain and restore healthy landscapes. We need 

to take care of the ecosystem. But we also need to support healthy, 

thriving communities and provide jobs in rural areas. 

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

I look forward to 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) 

2012. I appreciate the support this committee has shown the Forest Service in the 

past, and I look forward to working together in the future to ensure that stewardship of our Nation’s forests and grasslands continues to meet the desires and expectations of the American people. I am confident that this budget will allow the Forest 

Service to support this goal, while also reflecting our commitment to fiscal restraint 

and ensuring we are spending efficiently. 

As the Secretary testified earlier this week, we need to take some serious steps 

to reduce the deficit and reform government so that it’s leaner and smarter for the 

21st century. The FY 2012 budget USDA is proposing reflects the difficult choices 

we need to make to reduce the deficit while supporting targeted investments that 

are critical to long-term economic growth and job creation. To afford the strategic 

investments we need to grow the economy in the long term while also tackling the 

deficit, this budget makes difficult cuts to programs the Administration cares about. 

It also reflects savings from a number of efficiency improvements and other actions 

to streamline and reduce our administrative costs. It looks to properly manage deficit reduction while preserving the values that matter to Americans. 

A healthy and prosperous America relies on healthy forests and grasslands and 

the benefits they provide: clean air and water, carbon storage, renewable energy, 

food and fiber, fertile soils, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. The Forest 

Service delivers incredible value to the public by protecting and enhancing these 

benefits through forest health restoration, research, and financial and technical assistance to partners. Our national forests and grasslands help to sustain 224,000 

jobs in rural areas and contribute an estimated $14 billion to the Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP) each year through visitor spending alone.1 In addition to managing 

193 million acres on 155 national forests and 20 grasslands in 44 States and Puerto 

Rico, the Forest Service helps improve stewardship of lands outside the National 

Forest System. The agency partners with and provides technical assistance to other 

Federal agencies as well as Tribal, State and local governments; private landowners; 

and non-profit organizations for the betterment of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. Furthermore, the agency is a leader in cutting-edge research on climate 

change, bioenergy, wildfire management, forest pests and diseases, ecological restoration and other conservation issues. The agency works to efficiently maximize 

limited resources and create a high return on investment for the American taxpayer. The FY 2012 President’s Budget request for the Forest Service totals $5.1 billion 

in discretionary appropriations, a $178 million decrease from the FY 2011 

annualized continuing resolution, and a $239 million decrease from the FY 2011 

President’s Budget request. This decrease is achieved through several program re- 
6 

2 By restoration, we mean the process of assisting the recovery of resilience and the capacity 

of a system to adapt to change if the environment where the system exists has been degraded, 

damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing ecosystem functions by 

modifying or managing the composition, structural arrangement, and processes necessary to 

make a terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem sustainable and resilient under current and future 

conditions. 

combinations that streamline operations and increase efficiency and through major 

reductions in programs, including Roads, Facilities and National Fire Plan programs 

and associated State and Private Forestry Programs. In addition, the FY 2012 budget includes $44 million in targeted cost saving measures for the Forest Service 

through reduced travel and improved acquisition management procedures. These actions will allow us to focus limited resources on programs where we can achieve the 

greatest impact and that are of highest priority to the American people. Our budget 

priorities respond to the public’s desire to make smart Federal investments that will 

allow us to pass on to future generations the beauty, wildlife, water and natural 

resources that we have today. 

The FY 2012 budget for the Forest Service supports President Obama’s America’s 

Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative, the goals of the USDA’s strategic plan, and Secretary Vilsack’s ‘‘all-lands vision.’’ It aims to maintain and enhance the resilience 

and productivity of America’s forests through four funding priorities: Enhancing 

Water Resources, Responding to Climate Change, Community-based Stewardship, 

and Jobs in Rural Communities. 

Climate change, severe wildfires, disease and pests have all contributed to declining forest health. With the current forest health crisis threatening the future of our 

forests, ecological restoration2 is a key component to our FY 2012 strategy. We need 

to ensure that our forests are resilient in the face of future uncertainties. To most 

effectively address this forest health issue, we must work across landscapes and ecosystems, as well as across ownership boundaries. The Forest Service also aims to 

create jobs in rural areas, more actively involve local communities in caring for their 

land, and improve access to natural areas. Ensuring the sustainability of rural communities and increasing community collaboration in natural resources management 

are critical to the success of restoration efforts and the continued provision of goods 

and services from forest ecosystems. Finally, using forest biomass byproducts from 

ecological restoration activities as a source of renewable energy can help enhance 

U.S. energy security, economic opportunity, environmental quality, and global competitiveness. In FY 2012 we aim to strengthen biomass utilization efforts through 

our work with other agencies and our programs that encourage market development 

for woody biomass. 

Our four key funding priorities highlight how we as an agency are continually 

working to ensure that we are responding to the needs of the American public. 

ENHANCING WATER RESOURCES

One of the most important services that the American people receive from forested 

landscapes is the provision of clean and abundant drinking water. An adequate supply of clean water is integral to the health and prosperity of the United States. Over 

half of the Nation’s freshwater supply originates on public and private forest lands, 

and is the source of drinking water for more than 200 million people. The National 

Forest System (NFS) alone provides fresh water to approximately 66 million people, 

or one in five Americans. In addition, healthy rivers, lakes and streams are crucial 

to sustaining aquatic life, supporting terrestrial ecosystems, and providing highquality recreation opportunities. Maintaining an adequate supply of clean water will 

be one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century as our forests and communities 

continue to deal with climate change, severe wildfires, invasive pests, severe storm 

events, and development pressures. 

In June 2009, the Administration implemented the High-Priority Performance 

Goal (HPPG) initiative, asking agency leaders to deliver results on a limited number 

of priorities that are of high value to the American public. Ensuring that our national forests and private working lands enhance our water resources and are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change is a USDA HPPG. In 

order to achieve this goal, the Forest Service in collaboration with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Services Agency (FSA) will be working to implement high-impact targeted practices that are expected to have the greatest impact on protecting water resources on over 6 million acres in priority landscapes. These priority areas include targeted acreage on national forests and private 

working lands in the Chesapeake Bay Basin, Great Lakes, Mississippi River Basin/ 

Gulf of Mexico, and California Bay Delta/Sierras. 
7 

The Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) budget line item, first proposed in the 

FY 2011 budget request, will allow us to effectively integrate interdisciplinary restoration treatments that will protect and improve our water resources. The FY 2011 

budget request proposed to combine the Forest Products, Vegetation and Watershed 

Management, and Wildlife and Fisheries Management budget line items from previous years. In addition to these programs, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration, Legacy Roads and Trails, road decommissioning, and post-fire Rehabilitation 

and Restoration have also been added to IRR for the FY 2012 request. Moreover, 

the portion of hazardous fuels management funding work outside the wildland 

urban interface (WUI) has also been added to IRR for the FY 2012 request as the 

agency works toward restoring historic fire regimes on the non-WUI portion of NFS 

lands. Restoration projects require the integration of various stewardship activities. 

Thus, combining these programs will allow us to use resources more efficiently and 

will also create the vehicle that will allow the Forest Service to move toward restoring watersheds as a top priority. A new watershed condition metric will be used to 

evaluate improvements in watershed health using a national standard and provide 

clear accountability for the IRR program area. Specifically, we are proposing an $80 

million Priority Watershed and Job Stabilization initiative that will use the Watershed Condition Framework, State Forest Assessments, costs, and input from local 

communities to prioritize projects to fund to make progress toward improving watershed condition class. Proposed projects will be developed by the Forest Service and 

will come from the Action Plans created for the priority watersheds identified as 

part of the Watershed Condition Framework. We will also continue to use some of 

our established targeted measures, as well as continue to track outcomes related to 

past measures. FY 2012 restoration projects will maintain and improve water quality and watershed function, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and integrate forest 

products production into stewardship and watershed restoration activities. 

RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change jeopardizes the benefits that the public receives from America’s 

forests and grasslands, including clean air and water, forest products, and recreational opportunities. Many of the management challenges that we have faced 

over the past decades have been exacerbated by climate change, including catastrophic wildfires, changing water regimes, insect infestations, and disease. In FY 

2012, the Forest Service will continue to focus on incorporating climate change adaptation into multiple program areas, which includes making ecosystems more resistant to climate-related stressors, increasing ecosystem resilience to disturbance 

driven by climate change, and facilitating landscape-scale ecological transitions in 

response to changing environmental conditions. This priority is again tightly tied to 

restoration and our IRR budget line item. Restoring key functions and processes 

characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems allows them to withstand future 

stressors and uncertainties. Examples of IRR projects include decommissioning 

roads to reduce the risk of erosion from severe storms, reducing fuels outside the 

WUI to reduce the risk that severe wildfire will damage resources near important 

watersheds or critical habitat, and reforestation to stabilize critical watersheds and 

soils impacted by natural events and to increase long-term carbon sequestration capacity. 

The Forest Service has developed a Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change 

in order to guide the agency in achieving its climate change goals. The Roadmap 

focuses on three kinds of activities: 1) assessing current risks, vulnerabilities, policies, and gaps in knowledge; 2) engaging internal and external partners in seeking 

solutions; and 3) managing for resilience, in ecosystems as well as in human communities. The agency has implemented a scorecard to measure progress made by 

each national forest and grassland. The scorecard assesses agency capacity, partnerships and education, adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable consumption. 

Our commitment to responding to climate change is underscored in the proposed 

Planning Rule, published for comment in the Federal Register on February 14, 

2011. The Forest Service will begin to operate under the proposed Planning Rule 

in FY 2012 after it is finalized, emphasizing citizen collaboration and an all-lands 

approach to management planning, ecosystem restoration, and climate change mitigation. A new budget line item, Land Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring, has been proposed for FY 2012. Combining the previous line items Land 

Management Planning and Inventory & Monitoring highlights the clear tie between 

gathering information through monitoring and making management planning decisions. This combination better aligns program funding with the objectives of the proposed Planning Rule, ensuring that planning, monitoring, and conducting assessments are coordinated across the landscape. 
8 

Our climate change research program will continue to help clarify how climate 

change is expected to affect our ecosystems and the services they provide and to inform decision-makers as they evaluate policy options. With two decades of climate 

change research, the USFS is the authority on how forest and range management 

can be modified to address the challenges of global change. 

COMMUNITY-BASED STEWARDSHIP

Working with local communities is critical to the success of restoration efforts and 

increasing ecosystem resilience across the landscape. Increasing collaboration with 

stakeholders can move conservation efforts from a scale of thousands of acres to 

hundreds of thousands of acres. Most importantly, working together with stakeholders from project planning to implementation helps build citizen support for ecosystem restoration projects. The importance of getting citizens and communities 

more connected and involved with the outdoors has been emphasized in AGO. AGO 

seeks to empower citizens, community groups, and local, State and Tribal governments to share in the stewardship responsibility for protecting, improving, and accessing natural areas and their resources, with the end result of a healthy, vibrant 

outdoor legacy for generations to come. The agency is committed to achieving greater community-based stewardship in pursuit of resilient forests as outlined in the 

America’s Great Outdoors Report. The FY 2012 budget strategically allocates resources to support exemplary local stewardship models and to catalyze new partnerships and innovations. The Forest Service will work towards the goals of AGO 

through multiple program areas. 

Building on the sentiments of the American people, the AGO initiative seeks to 

maximize use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which directs a 

portion of revenue from offshore oil and gas leases to conservation projects. The 

LWCF funds the Forest Service’s Forest Legacy and Land Acquisition programs and 

provides local communities the opportunity to cost-share the conservation of priority 

forest land. The FY 2012 budget request funds LWCF at the fully authorized 

amount, which constitutes an increase of $59 million for the Forest Legacy program 

and an increase of $26 million for the Land Acquisition program from the FY 2011 

annualized continuing resolution. Forest Legacy works with States, private landowners, and other conservation partners to protect environmentally critical forests 

threatened by land conversion through conservation easements. Project funding is 

based on a nationally competitive process. To date, the Forest Legacy program has 

leveraged more than $630 million in non-federal matching funds to conserve over 

2 million acres of non-Federal forest land. In FY 2012, 48 projects have been proposed for funding in 38 states. Forest Legacy projects keep working forests working, 

which keeps jobs in rural areas. Forest Legacy projects also provide public access 

to recreation in many areas. Land Acquisition supports a similar function. Its primary focus is on land acquisitions and donations on land adjacent to national forests. In FY 2012, 38 nationally prioritized lands have been proposed for funding. 

Recreation on national forest lands results in a boost to local economies and the creation of jobs. This budget request includes an increase of $5.4 million for Recreation 

in support of AGO. 

Protecting land that borders NFS lands and acquiring in holdings abates the 

threat of development. Subdivisions and houses being established immediately adjacent to our wild areas increases costs to the agency, particularly for programs such 

as fire suppression. We have invested in protecting wildlife for over a century. By 

fully funding LWCF, our budget will maintain our historic investments for the 

American people. In addition to LWCF, we also have other tools to increase our 

management efficiency and become better neighbors with our adjacent landowners 

and will use these as well. I would like to also draw the Committee’s attention to 

the pilot land exchange program proposed in the landownership management budget line item, which will accentuate the benefits of consolidated land tenure on one 

of our National Grasslands. 

In FY 2012 the Forest Service will commence implementation of the 2008 Farm 

Bill’s Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program. This program provides eligible Tribal governments, local governments, and qualified non-profit organizations cost-share grants for creating community forests through fee-simple acquisition. This budget request includes an increase of $4.5 million for the Community 

Forest and Open Space Program. These forests will be able to provide public access 

and recreational opportunities, as well as protection of vital water supplies and 

wildlife habitat, demonstration sites for private forest landowners, and financial and 

community benefits from sustainable management. 

The Forest Service will continue to expand community engagement in restoration 

efforts on National Forest System land through the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
9 

3 USDA, Forest Service. 2010. Draft National Report on Sustainable Forests. http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/ 

Restoration Program (CFLR). Under the IRR budget line item, CFLR will provide 

for the continued implementation of the ten long-term projects selected in FY 2010 

and will provide for the selection of additional long-term projects. CFLR projects are 

proposed through multi-stakeholder collaborative planning at a local level, and priorities are suggested by a Federal Advisory Committee. In 2010, CFLR funded 10 

community restoration projects in Idaho, California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, 

Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Florida. 

Conservation education and volunteer opportunities will be a priority for the Forest Service as we implement AGO recommendations. We already have a variety of 

programs that have successfully connected youth to the outdoors, and we will continue to find opportunities for engaging youth in conservation efforts in FY 2012. 

The Lake Tahoe Generation Green program works with local community groups to 

engage at-risk high-school students in outdoor leadership and forest management 

activities. The Kids in the Woods program at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest 

is another example of a successful locally-based outdoor education program that has 

taught over 5,000 participants about a wide range of topics, including invasive species, water conservation, and responsible off-road vehicle use. The Chugach Children’s Forest in Alaska connects village, rural and inner-city youth with a nearby 

national forest, while motivating local District Rangers to work alongside community officials and school superintendents, integrating community youth challenges 

with outdoor solutions. Volunteer opportunities will also expand across the Forest 

Service, including wilderness stewardship, trail clearing, restoration of historic 

structures, and campground host duties. 

Finally, the proposed Planning Rule establishes a framework that emphasizes a 

collaborative approach to land management planning, assessment, and monitoring. 

The Forest Service will work with the public, Tribes and other partners to develop, 

revise and amend land management plans, conduct assessments and develop and 

implement monitoring programs. Collaborative approaches build citizen support in 

identifying needs, establishing desired conditions, crafting alternatives for future 

management, and identifying information and monitoring needs. 

JOBS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

In August 2009 in Seattle, WA, Secretary Vilsack spoke of the need for a ‘‘shared 

vision’’ that not only focuses on forest conservation, but also on supporting a forest 

economy that creates jobs and vibrant rural communities. The Forest Service is not 

only committed to providing benefits to the American people in the form of clean 

air and water, fish and wildlife habitat, timber, and recreation opportunities, but 

also in the form of jobs and sustainable rural communities. 

Forests and grasslands are an important source of employment and rural development. More than 2.5 million Americans have forest-related jobs in fields ranging 

from ecological restoration to outdoor recreation services to the forest products industry.3 The Forest Service provides service contracts for many types of activities 

including tree planting, timber harvesting, noxious weed control, culvert replacement, and road reconstruction. Recreation on national forest lands also bolsters local 

economies and creates jobs. The 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring Report found 

that spending by recreation visitors in areas surrounding national forests amounts 

to nearly $13 billion each year. 

Over the past year the Forest Service has worked to create and retain jobs in 

rural communities through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

of 2009. The Forest Service received funding for two programs. Capital Improvement and Maintenance received funds to restore infrastructure that supports public, 

administrative, and recreation uses, while minimizing impacts to ecosystem stability 

and conditions. In addition, Wildland Fire Management received funds to protect 

communities from large fires and to contribute to the restoration of fire-adapted 

landscapes. Final completion of all ARRA projects is expected to occur in the next 

two fiscal years. However, the agency will continue to have a jobs focus. Job creation 

and rural development will be a priority in FY 2012. 

One of the highlights of the IRR budget line item is creating job opportunities in 

rural areas. Creating job opportunities through landscape-scale restoration projects 

is a key component of the Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization Initiative under 

IRR. Stewardship contracts and agreements will be a significant method for carrying out restoration efforts, and attention will be given to new and emerging markets for the wood removed during restoration activities, as well as the traditional 

uses for these products. Building a forest restoration economy will create new jobs 
10 

in rural communities and help diversify the forest products industry to support the 

sustainability of local communities and the forest contractor infrastructure needed 

to perform restoration work. Also, we are working to further build a forest restoration economy around wood utilization by targeting grants to assist small businesses. 

Since 2005, the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program has awarded a total of 

$30.6 million to 123 grant recipients in 21 States, including small businesses, nonprofit organizations, Tribes, and State agencies, to further innovations in the wood 

products sector that lend to job creation. 

The Forest Service has also invested in job creation for youth through Job Corps, 

a partnership with the Department of Labor. This program helps people ages 16 

through 24 improve the quality of their lives through technical and academic career 

training. With Department of Labor funding, we operate 28 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers across the country that provide approximately 6,200 students per 

year with the skills they need to become employable and independent so that they 

can find meaningful jobs or further education. In March 2010, Secretary Vilsack unveiled a green Job Corps Curriculum that will help train underserved youth for jobs 

in the emerging green economy using national forests and grasslands as training 

sites for solar, wind and biomass energy demonstrations. 

America’s Great Outdoors hopes to build on the success of programs like Job 

Corps by creating a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps program that will remove barriers to employment and improve career pathways to jobs in natural resource conservation. This includes use of the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2005, which expanded youth service opportunities while addressing important conservation and societal objectives. The Forest Service has a longstanding commitment to recruiting employees that contribute to workforce diversity; 

providing opportunities for disadvantaged youth to pursue natural resource careers; 

and creating the next generation of land conservationists. The Forest Service will 

expand on AGO Goal A (to develop conservation jobs and service opportunities that 

protect and restore America’s natural resources) through the Youth Conservation 

Corps (YCC). This summer employment program aims to accomplish needed conservation work on public lands, provides gainful employment for 15-through 18-year 

olds from diverse backgrounds, and develops in them an understanding and appreciation of the Nation’s natural environment and heritage. 

To continue supporting the communities that we work in, the FY 2012 President’s 

Budget proposes a five-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act, named 

Payments to Communities, and includes $328 million of discretionary funding for 

FY 2012. This Act provides annual payments to counties for schools and roads, forest restoration/protection, and fire assistance. The proposal modifies the existing 

framework to emphasize enhancing forest ecosystems, improving land health and 

water quality, and increasing economic development activities. The Administration 

is open to working with Congress to fund either through discretionary or mandatory 

appropriations. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The FY 2012 budget request continues to reflect the President’s commitment to 

responsibly budget for wildfires, ensuring fire management resources are used in a 

cost effective manner in high priority areas. The 10-year average of suppression 

costs is fully funded, and the allocations between Preparedness and Suppression 

funds have been adjusted to ensure that readiness needs are fully funded for this 

fiscal year. The budget request includes a two-tier system for fire suppression. The 

Suppression account will be the primary source of funding for responding to 

wildfires, covering the costs of initial and smaller extended attack operations. The 

FLAME reserve account will provide better accounting of funds to cover fires escaping initial attack that are large and complex, as it did last year. This system ensures that funds are available to fight fires without diverting funds from other critical Forest Service programs and activities. 

CONCLUSION

This President’s budget request for FY 2012 takes a comprehensive, all-lands approach to conservation that addresses the challenges that our forests and grassland 

currently face, while also taking into consideration the need to reduce spending and 

to find the most efficient way to do our work. 

The future of our country’s forests and the valuable ecosystem services they provide depend on our ability to manage for an uncertain climate and uncertain market. This means landscape-level restoration, working across ownership boundaries, 

relying upon a foundation of strong science to guide decisions, and collaborating 

with Tribal, State, local, private, and other Federal stakeholders to achieve common 
11 

goals. A comprehensive approach to restoring unhealthy ecosystems will help make 

our forests more resilient to stressors and disturbances related to climate change 

and protect our vital water resources. At the same time, we can significantly contribute to economic recovery and job support by building a forest restoration economy. Greater involvement of citizens and communities is key to successfully implementing restoration efforts at large geographic scales. Our vision in creating healthy 

landscapes not only includes creating healthy ecosystems, but also creating healthy, 

thriving communities around our Nation’s forests and grasslands and providing jobs 

in rural areas. The FY 2012 budget request highlights these priorities. 

I look forward to sharing more with you about our FY 2012 priorities and working 

with you in shaping the proposals laid out in this budget. Thank you for your time 

and attention, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Let me start with a couple questions. 

One is on the whole issue of fighting fires which is a big part of 

what your agency winds up having to do each year I understand. 

We’ve had a circumstance over many years where in order to get 

the funding needed to fight fires you had to go in and steal the 

money essentially or borrow the money from other accounts. According to the figures I’ve got there’s about $417 millions that over 

the years was borrowed from other accounts to fund emergency 

wild fire suppression operations. This budget proposes to rescind $192 million in unobligated balances from previous years which I gather is essentially saying that 

$192 million of the money that was borrowed from these other accounts we’re now going to rescind and never spend and since they 

restore that to the Federal treasury. Shouldn’t that money be used 

for the projects that were funded by Congress and the Administration rather than just rescinded at this point? It seems to me that 

the action or the proposed action by the Administration is contrary 

to what Congress already voted to do and the President agreed to. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, first I want to once again thank 

you for your leadership and support of the FLAME fund. That act 

now will do a lot to reduce the need for us to borrow funds in the 

future from our other accounts to pay for suppression. 

With our budget request to rescind $192 million that’s to help 

offset our current budget request. Based on the last couple years 

of a fairly light fire season we have not needed all the suppression 

funds that you’ve provided over the last couple years. So we have 

not only the FLAME fund, but we also have suppression carry over 

accounts. We believe we don’t need that money at this time and we 

feel that a better opportunity would be to rescind some of that 

money to basically offset our budget request for 2012. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask also about the proposal you have 

there to prevent new capital construction starts. General Accountability Office and others have reported concerns that the agency is 

spending more on high lease and maintenance costs than it would 

have to spend if it went ahead with some construction of new facilities. Does it make any sense to have a blanket policy that prevents 

the agency from constructing facilities when the facts in particular 

cases would indicate that the taxpayer would be better served if we 

did? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, our budget represents some really 

tough decisions that we had to make as far as our request in realizing we needed to reduce spending in some areas. One of those is 

our construction of new facilities. So we feel that the best use of 
12 

the money that we’re requesting in 2012 would be to complete the 

ongoing projects before we start any new projects. 

No doubt there’s some expensive leases that we have that we 

would like to be able to provide different opportunities there to reduce our overall costs. But at the same time we feel that the best 

use of these funds is to finish up the work that’s started now and 

not do any new starts in 2012. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask one other issue here. Your budget 

proposes to eliminate the budget line for a number of programs. 

One is in my State, the Valles Caldera National Preserve. You propose to eliminate that. 

You propose to eliminate the budget line for international forestry and also for some subsistence programs in Alaska. 

With regards to the Valles Caldera National Preserve, as I understand it the budget proposes that you maintain the same level 

of funding that you had in fiscal year 2010. But you do it through 

4 different accounts and eliminate the particular line item account 

for the Valles Caldera which has been there for quite some time 

now. 

What’s the justification for that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, you’re correct that we anticipate to 

do the same level of funding for all 3 of the programs that you’ve 

mentioned with our 2012 budget. But by eliminating separate line 

items it just reduces the accounting that has to be done on relatively small budget line items. Each of these have a treasury symbol that we have to track to that line item. 

By eliminating the line items, but still fulfilling our responsibility and commitment to fund these programs, it just reduces some 

of the accounting part of our business that we need to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you’re still going to be able to demonstrate 

through your accounting. I assume that you have spent the level 

of funding that you indicate you’re planning to spend on these 

items? Right? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, we’ll be able to show you how much money 

we spent in these 3 areas through our accounting system. We just 

will not have to have a separate treasury symbol for each budget 

line item. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t really know how it simplifies things to 

have to keep track of how much is being spent from 4 different accounts to achieve the purpose which otherwise would be achieved 

by maintaining one account. But maybe there’s some alchemy here 

that I’m just not understanding. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’m not sure I’m understanding it either, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, I want to ask you a couple questions relating to the 

Tongass Timber Program. Back in 2008 the Forest Service committed to preparing an offering for 10-year timber sales with volumes of 150 to 200 million board feet each in the Tongass National 

Forest. We both know the history behind it and why this action 

was taken. Congress has repeatedly made available pipeline funds 

to allow for the Forest Service to prepare these 10-year sales and 

other 10-year sales. 
13 

Now we’re told that the agency plans to convert 2 of the 10-year 

timber sales to stewardship contracts, to offer only half of the 

promised volume and to offer that reduced volume, in small parcels. The question to you is: what has happened to the commitment 

to four 10-year sales? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, our commitment is to be able to sustain 

the communities in Southeast Alaska. An integrated wood products 

industry is just essential for that. So when I look at what we’ve 

been doing in the past in Alaska, it has not worked. We spent more 

time in court than we have actually been out on the ground getting 

work accomplished. 

So we’ve changed our approach to be able to work with the communities, work with the villages, work with folks there in Southeast Alaska to build support around the work that we can get accomplished. Our first stewardship contract that we’ll be awarding 

later this spring is a step forward. I recognize we’re not getting 

enough work done. 

But I look at what we we’re doing in 2008 and 2009, and I look 

at what we accomplished in 2010, and what we plan to accomplish 

in 2011, what we plan to accomplish in 2012, and the trend is in 

the right direction. 

We’re building support so that we can actually move forward and 

get the work accomplished on the ground. Right now, as you well 

know, the industry is almost on its last legs. I just don’t feel we 

can take a risk on maybe some large projects that we can end up 

being in court over verses being able to get work through that we 

can go ahead and implement. 

So that’s our focus. To be able to ensure that we can continue 

to provide work, continue to provide timber sales so that the existing infrastructure can stay in place. Then over time, to be able to 

build some credibility that through this program, through our stewardship contracts, through our timber sales, that folks will feel better about investing in the future. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We’ve had this conversation before. Investing in the future makes it very difficult if everybody who has been 

a participant in this industry is no longer around. We keep talking 

about this transition to second growth. I have suggested that 

there’s not going to be anybody left to conduct that transition. 

I mentioned this in my opening comments. You say that the 

trend is improving. Going from 600 employees to 6 employees is not 

a trend that I want to see. Recognizing that we have only one remaining large mill, the second largest timber related construction 

company is gone. These are not trends that I want to continue. I 

want to reverse these trends. 

I’m concerned because we had a commitment from the government, particularly from the Forest Service, to have these four 10- 

year contracts. Now we’re down to 2. These are stewardship contracts, as you stated. 

I don’t disagree with you that we’ve been hung up in litigation. 

But I’m also not certain that this new approach frees us from the 

litigation and puts us on a better track. Again, I’ve got to speak 

for the people of Southeastern Alaska who feel that they’ve been 

given a promise, given a commitment, and the Federal Government 
14 

has not kept that promise. It’s been to the detriment of the people 

who live in the region, live in the Tongass. 

Let me ask you whether it is correct that the timber sales that 

involve any old-growth timber have to be approved personally by 

the Secretary of Agriculture and his staff. 

I would also like to confirm whether or not any timber sales that 

involve the inventoried roadless areas have to also be approved by 

the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Is that true in both of those cases? 

Mr. TIDWELL. With timber sales that involve old growth, no. 

Those decisions are made at the forest level or at the region level 

as they always have been. 

Secretary Vilsack does have an interim directive in place when 

it comes to road less due to the current situation with the ruling 

in the 9th circuit and the 10th circuit. So until that’s resolved he 

does consider those and we recommend the projects. So far we’ve 

been able to move forward with the projects that reach him. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What does that do to cause delay in the 

process? The Secretary is very busy. How tuned-in is he to looking 

at a sale in a particular part of the country? How much of a delay 

does this create by having to run everything all the way up to the 

Secretary of Agriculture? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It usually takes about an hour to brief me. Then 

we take the information across the street to his staff and have a 

briefing on it. Usually we get these through in a relatively short 

period of time. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I don’t know that we do that so effectively 

anywhere else in the Federal Government. If it’s actually a matter 

of hours, who am I to complain? But I worry about the fact that 

we are taking an issue to the Secretary level, when it should be 

able to be resolved within the regions. 

My time is expired. I’ll wait for round 2. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, good to have you here. Let me pick up on this point that 

Chairman Bingaman began with. With respect to the Timber Payments Law which as you know was written here in this committee, 

written twice. 

What troubles me about the Administration’s approach now is 

you all are turning a historical obligation into a year to year gamble. That’s essentially when you strip down what’s going on. What’s 

going to happen? 

I think that is very troubling. It is exactly the opposite of what 

the President rejected when he was in Oregon and other places in 

2008. I know Colorado and a number of States heard essentially 

exactly the same thing. 

So my first question to you is what are you all going to do to address what the President talked about which is getting these rural 

communities off this roller coaster of uncertainty? Because what I 

get out of this budget now is the historical obligation which is 100 

years old, which was, as you know, right at the heart of creating 

the National Forest system. The country would enjoy parks and 

places like the wonderful communities I represent to get help for 
15 

schools and roads and basic services seems that it’s not only being 

chipped away. It’s being replaced, literally taking the historical obligation and making it a year to year gamble. 

What are we going to do to help honor what the President talked 

about in 2008? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I share your concern. You know, the importance of reauthorization of this act. As you well know it’s something that’s just essential. This is not the time to be eliminating 

this program. 

So that is why we have put $328 million of our discretionary 

funding to dedicate that to the first—— 

Senator WYDEN. Taking a program that was mandatory. It was 

part of a historical obligation and as you’ve said, made it discretionary. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. Senator we want to work with you on finding 

options for mandatory funding. We understand the concern. 

I’ve worked with counties throughout my career. I’ve worked on 

the original act. I understand the importance of being able to provide that certainty so that counties can plan over a period of time 

and not have to be dependent on what happens each year. 

So we want to work with you on finding mandatory funding. We 

want to work with you on those considering that. Then also we 

need your support to be able to put together the legislative proposal that will also be essential for how this will actually work over 

the next 5 years. 

Senator WYDEN. You aren’t going to have any trouble getting me 

to work with you to do a 5-year proposal. As you know, Chairman 

Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, many of us put together the last 

one. It certainly required a little bit more creativity than people 

might have thought. It now, of course, includes PILT and other approaches and we’ll do it. 

But we just cannot put rural communities in this place where a, 

I don’t think a lot of them are going to survive. They’re simply not 

going to make it. They’re walking on an economic tightrope today. 

They’re just not going to make it. 

But second, the inability to be able to plan or predict what’s 

going to happen is just devastating to them. That gets me to the 

second area that I touched on. It’s almost the flip side of the Timber Payments legislation is that as you look at the historic obligation and recognizing that times have changed. 

The question is what are we going to do to get these communities 

into areas where they can be more supportive of activities in the 

private sector? Grow their private sector economy which is why we 

want a lot of the mills to be able to do more thinning? Now you 

all are cutting the hazardous fuels accounts by my calculation 

somewhere in the—overall about $10 million. It’s a little bit hard 

to kind of follow the way the money is moving. 

But perhaps more troubling is according to those charts that you 

all gave the staff. We’re not hitting the targets now for the 

thinning that needs to be done. This goes back to when this committee basically saved the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

As you know the bill came over from the House. It was dead. A 

big group from this committee largely worked pump new life into 
16 

it. We said one area we agree on is we’ve got to have more 

thinning. 

Not getting the thinning done that’s needed today to hit those 

targets. The budget is going to go down. So how we going to see 

anything other than less thinning this year compared to last year 

based on your own chart? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, you know, I share your concern about the 

amount of work we’re getting done. Last year we did exceed our 

timber target. We’ve actually increased that for this coming year. 

Senator WYDEN. You exceeded your thinning target last year? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We exceeded our forest products target. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m looking at a chart. I guess it is goal one. Key 

performance measures. I can’t tell what page it’s on. It says 3–9. 

But it looks like it terms of acres you’re at 59 percent. So you’re 

saying that exceeded the previous year? That was less than 59 percent the previous year? You got it up? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The board feet target that we had is what I was 

referring to. There’s no question there is a need to do significantly 

more thinning. That is one of the things we’re going to continue to 

focus on. 

It’s one of the benefits that I hope to achieve through the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item to be able to create 

more efficiencies within the way we design projects. Be ableto actually get more work accomplished. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m over my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

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

Welcome to the committee. It’s good to see you again. Appreciate 

you being here. I just wanted to talk about a couple things. 

I’m concerned about the Administration’s infatuation with limiting multiple use on public lands and obtaining more land at the 

same time. There seems to be a general theme of expanding control 

within the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, the Treasured 

Landscapes and the BLM Secretarial Order designated de facto 

wilderness. The rush to acquire more Federal land seems to be in 

evidence by the Forest Service’s proposal to increase land acquisitions by 42 percent from last year. 

So I’m just curious in these times of debt and deficit does it just 

make more sense to reduce the deficit enable the Forest Service to 

concentrate on properly managing its existing lands rather than 

continue to go out and acquire additional lands? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator I understand your concern with this additional request for more LWCF funding. But that request is based 

on what we’ve heard from the public. When we did, I think, close 

to 50 listening sessions around the country last year on America’s 

Great Outdoors this was one of the things that we heard across the 

country that there was more and more support for the land conservation and support for full funding for LWCF. 

The way that we use these funds and the majority of our increase is in our Forest Legacy program that is for conservation 

easements. The purpose there is to be able to help people stay on 

the land, for those folks that are in a situation where they’re having trouble to make it on their land. Often a conservation easement 
17 

can allow them to stay on their land, that ranch, that farm, their 

forested lands, to stay productive and be able to continue to have 

working open space. 

The other advantage of it is for access. As it just seems like 

there’s a trend across the country for folks that have private land 

to start to lock gates and to keep the public from crossing their 

land to be able to get to public land. So this is another key focus 

for both the Legacy program and our Acquisition program. 

The other thing is that both, especially the Acquisition program, 

help reduce the cost by eliminating land line locations that have to 

be maintained. It makes it easier for us to manage if you have a 

consolidated block of land. It’s easier to do projects on that verses 

if you’re dealing with these small parcels of private land. It also 

provides benefit for wildlife habitat. 

I understand these are difficult decisions. But as I look at the 

benefits of this program and especially in the economic times that 

we have, it seems to be more and more folks that are really struggling to be able to stay on their lands. So by increasing the opportunity for conservation easements there’s a direct benefit to not 

only help them to stay on the land, but also provide the other benefits for the public. 

Senator BARRASSO. You’re talking about letting people stay on 

their land? I’m looking at what the Forest Service draft planning 

rule is. It quotes, ‘‘planning for landscape scale and broader landscape.’’ The definition, when you take a look at how you define 

these things: ecosystems, land forms, plant communities across a 

defined area irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries.’’ 

So following up on that last answer. How do you envision the 

Forest Service managing at the landscape level and under your definition, ‘‘irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries?’’ 

Do you believe the private property lines are artificial boundaries? 

How does that all fit in? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I respect private property boundaries and 

we all do in the Forest Service. The concept behind taking a landscape scale approach within our planning rule is that any decisions 

that are made in a forest plan revision is for the National Forest 

System lands only. But what we want to do and when we start the 

assessment to really consider the changes we need to make in current management, we need to factor in what’s going on on the adjacent landscapes. 

We need to work with the States. We need to work with the 

counties to understand what their needs are so that our management is in alignment more with what’s going on with their lands. 

So that we can work together. 

For instance, when we’re dealing with, as you’re well familiar 

with, bark beetle. The idea to stop a project at a boundary line 

verses having the opportunity to be able to look at the entire landscape and be able to work together with the States, maybe the private landowners so that we do one project that maybe covers all 

of that at the same time. That’s the sort of thing that we want to 

do more of. 
18 

It’s to be able to understand what’s going on with the adjacent 

lands. Then factor that into the management decisions that we’re 

making on the National Forest System lands. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate your comments on the bark beetle because I have a Good Neighbor Forestry act to allow people to 

do that. We met with a little bit of resistance in getting additional 

hearings and having that as part of additional discussion. But I 

think it’s critical. 

I do want to recognize the work and the research and the funding that the Forest Service has dedicated to bark beetle infestation. 

It seems that the problem is getting ahead of us though in terms 

of the resources that we’ve had verses the now 3.6 million acres of 

mountain pine beetle infestation in Wyoming alone. We see what 

they were able to do in Alberta. It made a big difference. 

So with such a success story in other places we’re hoping that 

we can get some more actions planned for the treatable acres to 

help restore resilience to our forests here. I’d love to hear what 

your thoughts are on that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we share your concerns of course about 

what’s going on with the bark beetle infestation throughout the 

West. Traditionally we have infestations that come and go. It’s part 

of our pine types and a native pest. But we have never seen this 

level of infestation before. We’ve never seen the spread occur at 

this level before. 

So we recognize that we need to move forward with this and 

dedicate additional resources. We have—the process of completing 

a bark beetle strategy that will lay out our plans for the next few 

years. I’m hoping that’s in final clearance now. We should be able 

to share a copy with you in the foreseeable future, in the near future. 

One of the things that that strategy calls for is an increase in 

the dedication of our current budgets to deal with this problem. 

That we plan to dedicate over about $100 million a year to focus 

on dealing with bark beetle in these States. This is expanding. 

With the current environmental conditions, the current climate 

that we have, it’s just very, very favorable for bark beetles. 

I tell you until we get an extended cold winter, especially early 

winter, we’re not going to see this infestation really slow down 

until we run out of trees. So we recognize we need to increase our 

current efforts. So that’s one of the things you’ll see in the strategy 

is that that’s going to be the level of dedication of our funding to 

deal with this problem. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me pick up, if I might, Chief, on Senator Barrasso’s comments and before I go there, welcome and thank you for taking the 

time to come to the Hill today. 

As you know, Colorado’s forests have been severely affected by 

the beetle infestation. I think we have more acres than any other 

State infested at this time. The bad news is that other States are 

going to reach the level of infestation we’re experiencing. 
19 

As you know, it’s not just about dead trees, but it’s about the 

safety of those who travel and recreate near our forest. Falling 

trees can affect the safety of those who travel on roads and trails, 

power lines are at risk, campgrounds, and of course they stand 

there as potential fuel for forest fires. 

One report suggests it’s a phenomenal number. But I’ve had it 

confirmed a number of times that 100,000 trees a day are falling. 

It’s a number I can’t quite wrap my mind around. 

But we need funding to mitigate these affects. I understand that 

it may be possible for the Forest Service to reprogram existing 

funds to address bark beetle mitigation in Region Two, the region 

that Senator Barrasso and I both are a part of. Do you support reprogramming funds to address the bark beetle epidemic in Region 

Two? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we did send a request up late last year 

to reprogram $70 million of carryover suppression funds that we 

believe would have been better used to be able to increase our response to the bark beetle. The last time we had a serious infestation it was—and this one is much larger than what we had, you 

know, in Southern California a few years ago. But at that time 

Congress was able to appropriate significantly more money outside 

of our strain. I think we received close to about $130 million additional dollars to address that infestation. 

As much as I’d like to be able to say we can deal with this one 

within our current budget constraint, we’ll not be able to do all the 

work that we need to do. So that was one of the reasons that we 

sent up the reprogramming request. We appreciate the Senate Appropriation Committee’s support of that request. 

Senator UDALL. I would hope the other body would take note of 

what’s happening in the West. That the wiser and cooler heads 

would prevail there as well. Because these are moneys that are, in 

effect, in hand and would be put to very good use. If our focus in 

the Congress should be on jobs and our economy, these dollars 

have a direct connection, particularly in our Western economies. 

On that note let me turn to another subject since Senator Barrasso has stepped out. But he and I have worked along with many 

members of this committee on legislation that we’ve recently reintroduced that would clarify your authority when it comes to permitting non-snow and summertime sport activities on Forest Service land. This would be focused particularly at the ski industry. 

As you know, the bill—I think I can use these words—wildly popular, passed this committee unanimously last year. Passed the 

House. We were within a few inches of the goal line here in the 

Senate as the year ran out. 

With this in mind will you be prepared to begin permitting summertime activities when the bill is passed in the coming months? 

What action can you take in the interim to prepare for that eventuality? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for your leadership to provide 

this legislative solution to a situation where we need your help. 

Our current authorities do not allow us to permit summer activities 

that we feel would be a much better use to the infrastructure that 

exists at our ski resorts. So I just want to thank you for your leadership. 
20 

What we’re working on right now is to be positioned so that we’ll 

have our manual direction in place so that when this legislation 

passes we can quickly move forward and provide the direction on 

how to follow this to the field. Normally it takes anywhere from a 

year to maybe 2 years for us to complete our process. So one of the 

things we want to do is to expedite that and actually get working 

today. 

Depending what comes out of the final legislative process we’ll be 

able then to amend. But we’re working on it right now so that we 

can move much quicker than we have in the past to be able to get 

the direction to our field. 

Senator UDALL. That’s excellent, and again, as you know, there 

was no real objection to the bill. It was in a package that we were 

characterizing as an Omnibus Public Lands package. 

There were objections to other legislative initiatives in that package. But we must be ready to go. Again, if our focus in this Congress ought to be on jobs and the economy, this helps rural communities that have shoulder seasons where people are laid off and 

where the activity level isn’t what it should be to maintain those 

economies. This would be very helpful. 

If I might on my remaining few seconds, I just—Senator Barrasso has stepped out. He and I have worked together on the previous 2 topics I raised. He and I may have a slightly different 

points of view on LWCF. 

I want to commend you for the work that you’ve done. I also 

want to remind the committee that those LWCF dollars which are 

a form of a payback to taxpayers for assets that are developed that 

are finite. They have never been fully directed into protecting our 

public lands and our urban parks and our urban forests, all the 

various areas in which LWCF operates. 

I think we would keep faith to the taxpayers if we saw all of 

those dollars directed into LWCF needs. There is a significant 

backlog. It’s a place where Senator Barrasso and I might agree 

when it comes to conservation easements, existing infrastructure 

and the like with those dollars, could be directed. 

Finally I don’t think you intended to suggest that the government is going to tell private property owners what to do when it 

comes to conservation easements. What you were saying was that 

whether it’s another tool that could be made available to private 

property owners to maintain open spaces, wildlife and the like, if 

those private property owners want to take advantage of those 

funds and those resources. So I just wanted to put that point of 

view on the record. 

I thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senators, thank you for, you know, correcting. If 

I misspoke it’s with both of our—— 

Senator UDALL. No, I don’t think you did. I just wanted to speak 

my mind as well. 

Mr. TIDWELL. OK. 

Senator UDALL. But I don’t think you did. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 
21 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken has been here since the beginning. Let me call on him and then Senator Hoeven and then Senator Johnson and then Senator Manchin. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, 

Chief for your testimony. 

One of the funding increases in this budget is for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration fund. There have been some 

really good projects funded under this program. So I don’t mean to 

discredit any of the projects that were funded in 2010. 

But I’d like to ask about how you determined the geographic distribution of these awards because I notice that none of the awards 

went to the upper Midwest. The Minnesota Chippewa and Superior 

National Forest submitted a proposal under this program last year. 

I’d like to see that funded in the next round of funding. 

Can you tell me more about what you consider when decided 

which of these projects to fund? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. We have an advisory committee 

that’s in place that the project proposals first go to. Then they look 

at multiple factors as far as what’s being proposed, the level of support, the matching funds that are required. Then they make recommendations to me as to which projects should go forward. 

Then I take a look at their recommendations. Also we take a look 

at their projects again and then based on that we go forward with 

the selection. The problem we had, and which is a really good problem, is this is such a popular program because it will allow folks 

to be able to do work on much larger landscapes, be able to have 

more assurance that funding will be there for multiple years so 

that they can really take on more of a long term contracts, etcetera. 

So the response just exceeded what our capability was with the 

first year’s funding. It’s one of the reasons we’ve asked for full 

funding. So that we’d not only be able to maintain the projects we 

selected last year, but be able to then look at the new proposals 

and especially the one that you refer to. It’s an excellent project. 

In fact every project that was submitted ideally should be funded. But there’s just competition for it. So we look forward to hopefully getting—— 

Senator FRANKEN. You spoke to my next question which is should Congress fund this program at $40 million for FY2012, as 

you’ve requested, will it fund ongoing projects only or will you be 

able to fund new projects like the one in Minnesota? 

Mr. TIDWELL. If we receive full funding we’ll be able to do both. 

We’ll be able to continue funding with the projects we selected plus 

be able to have funds available for new projects. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

One of the 4 priorities you mentioned in your testimony is creating jobs in rural communities. We’ve been talking about that. I’m 

glad that you’ve prioritized the research on biomass. 

I was just up in Morris, Minnesota where they have a biomass 

gasification combined heat and power pilot project. They use a direct energy system to heat the whole campus and provide electricity. It’s a great system. We need to do more of this kind of biomass projects around the country. 

I think woody biomass has an important role to play. Because 

when you manage forests sustainably woody biomass is a huge op-
22 

portunity for renewable energy and job creation. We’ve got a lot of 

this up in northern Minnesota. I just think we need to do more R 

and D and more pilot projects like this one in Morris at the university there to figure out better and more efficient ways to use woody 

biomass. 

Can you tell me more about the Woody Biomass Utilization 

Grant program and what you plan to do with the proposed increase 

in this budget for FY2012? 

Mr. TIDWELL. In our budget request we’re asking for $5 million 

for our Woody Biomass Utilization Grant program to be able to provide funding for these various facilities you’re referring to to be 

able to get some additional infrastructure in place. We need the 

ability to be able to make use of this material that needs to be removed. I’m not talking about the saw log material. I’m talking 

about the residual material that often we have the choice of either 

paying someone to pile it and then burn it verses being able to remove it and make beneficial use out of it. 

So converting biomass to energy is one of the areas that we feel 

will help not only make use of the material. But it will offset the 

cost of the work that needs to be done. So we feel that this grant 

program is one way that we can encourage some additional infrastructure. 

We’re also working on 48 different facilities with the Department 

of Energy and Rural Utility Service and Rural Development to be 

able to put packages together to help encourage additional infrastructure. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I agree that we should be using 

this. I mean, it is really, you know, has a zero carbon footprint because the CO2 that it takes to grow the stuff is what it releases, 

so. The gasification plants are very, very efficient. So thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, thank you for being with us today. 

In North Dakota we don’t have quite as many trees as some of 

our sister States like Minnesota, although good wind like Minnesota as we were discussing yesterday. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOEVEN. But fewer trees than many other States. But 

we do have the National Grasslands and not sure how in the 

course of history the Forest Service ended up with the grasslands 

rather than perhaps some other division of USDA. But there’s some 

unique challenges in managing the grasslands. 

As you know we have ranchers out there. Certainly that creates, 

I think, a different situation for you than you would face in terms 

of managing forests. One of the questions I have for you is the— 

clearly you manage for multiple uses. But the ranchers feel that 

when there is a dispute with Forest Service that they’d like to be 

able to go to ag-mediation. 

Our farmers and ranchers are used to going to ag-mediation 

services. They feel that that would be a good way to have arbitration or dispute resolution and management with the Forest Service. 

They feel that would be a fair venue. 

Please give me your thoughts on using the ag-mediation service 

for that process. 
23 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, our decisions on the grasslands are covered by our appeals process. If we’re making a decision that results 

in the suspension or a cancellation, a reduction in the number of 

cattle that’s being grazed then we do go—we do use the mediation 

procedures. But if our decisions are not of that level of significance 

than we go through our appeals process and that’s available to the 

ranchers. 

So on more significant decisions definitely we go through mediation before we move forward with that. But on more of the routine 

decisions then we use our appeals process that’s available for the 

ranchers if they disagree with the decision. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you say you are going through North Dakota ag-mediation services for some of the decisions? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. If it’s a decision that results in a suspension 

or a reduction in the number of cattle that’s being grazed we do 

go through mediation. 

Senator HOEVEN. I think the concern—and from the rancher’s 

standpoint they’re out to make they live there. They work there. 

They’re making a living there. They recognize multiple use. They’re 

good stewards of the land. 

Their concern is if they go through your internal process. How 

is that in essence, an arbitration or a fair hearing process, where 

both sides are, you know, have the same relative standing? So 

that’s their concern with going through a mediation service rather 

than through an internal service of the Forest Service. 

The other thing is since USDA has a national appeals division 

why not use the national appeals division that everyone else 

throughout USDA uses? That would certainly provide a fair venue 

and a venue again, where you have both parties feeling like they’re 

getting fair treatment. What about that approach? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator I feel our current approach is 

the mix of the 2 processes. That there’s been a lot of support for 

our appeals process from everyone that we deal with because I 

think it’s proven to be a fair process. If a decision is made by the 

Grassland Supervisor, his decision is appealed then to the regional 

office. So it’s a different set of people that look at it. So I feel that 

our appeals process is very fair. 

When we’re talking about a more significant decision that would 

have an effect on the rancher’s operations as far as reducing the 

number of livestock they can run, then we do use the mediation 

process. We also, before we make decisions, want to focus on working with folks up front. 

So we actually can reach agreement on what needs to be done 

ahead of time before we make that decision. I mean, that’s what 

we really want to focus on so that there’s actually less time spent 

after the decision has been made but more time making a better 

decision. That’s where we want to just focus our time. 

Senator HOEVEN. Chief, are you telling me you’re willing to use 

either ag-mediation services or the national appeals division for all 

of these decisions? Are you willing to do that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I’m just willing to use the mediation process for decisions that result in any reductions or temporary suspensions or 

changes to the number of livestock that they operate. But the other 
24 

decisions that we make I feel that our current appeals process is 

a better way to address those. 

Senator HOEVEN. I’d like to follow up with you on this because 

the perception is that’s an internal process so it’s not a fair hearing 

process. So I’d like to do some more work with you on that process. 

Then also and I may have to save this for the next round, but 

talk to you a little bit about using range scientists for some of these 

determinations too. I’ll go into that on a follow up round then. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Welcome to Chief Tidwell. Until the last century our bark beetle problem was kept in check by periodic burning, all intensity burning. Have you got the funding available for 

thinning to keep the pine beetle in check? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, you are correct that in the past we’ve had 

more success to reduce these infestations through thinning and actually some harvest and prescribed burning. There in South Dakota in the Black Hills we are in a little better position than we 

are in some of the other States. Because your Ponderosa Pine type 

there allows us to be able to get out in front of the infestation. So 

that’s one of the things that we’re currently focused on is as soon 

as we start to see a new outbreak occur there to be able to quickly 

jump on that to remove the infested trees in trying to reduce the 

spread. 

The other key part of it is the burning, prescribed burning that 

we need to use and then thinning of the forests. So you’re correct 

that those are the right tools that we need to go forward with. 

I feel that the budget request that we put in front of you will provide an adequate level of work for us to be able to continue along 

with the additional resources we are going to dedicate from all the 

various budget line items that we can use when it comes to bark 

beetle. 

Senator JOHNSON. There is both good and bad involved in the 

Black Hills. It’s true that Ponderosa Pine is predominant although 

there is a high level of interface between the population and the 

trees. 

I was pleased to see the emphasis on conservation and outdoor 

recreation in the Forest Service budget. I was especially pleased 

that the budget request would include a forest blazing program 

funding for the Blood Run site in southeastern South Dakota. 

On the National Grasslands the checkerboard mix of ownership 

can complicate and add cost for both Federal and private landowners. A key tool that the Forest Service has to address these 

challenges is exchange of public and private lands. This has a benefit of consolidating both public and private lands without the expense of acquiring new Federal lands. 

Your testimony highlights a proposed pilot land exchange program to demonstrate the benefits of consolidating land ownership 

within a National Grassland. Could you elaborate on how such a 

program might work your National Grasslands as efficient resources to address other management challenges like noxious 

weeds? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, in our budget request we include a new 

concept of a pilot approach there on the grasslands where we could 

take a very focused effort to see if we can’t improve the efficiency 
25 

of our land exchanges. They normally take many years to complete 

and what we want to look at through your pilot idea is to be able 

to take a focused effort to see if that couldn’t really make a difference by focusing on different geographical areas in the country 

instead of our current approach where we’re trying to do it everywhere at the same time. 

So I’m optimistic that with this pilot idea that we can actually 

show a way to increase our efficiency to get these done quicker for 

everyone. It benefits not only the private landowner and their management, but it definitely reduces our costs, our Administrative 

costs, the cost of our project development if we can consolidate 

these lands across the country. The grasslands is one of the areas 

where we still have quite a bit of a checkerboard land pattern. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin was here. If Senator Lee does 

not mind, I’ll have him go ahead with his questions and then have 

you. 

Go ahead, Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. 

First of all let me thank you for being here and I appreciate it 

very much. I come from West Virginia which is probably the most 

forested State per acre of any State in the Nation. It’s a tremendous hard wood. 

With that being said, you know, we have some concerns. I’ve 

been working with the Forestry division on that. But I think as a 

broad question I would ask with the continuing resolution what effect does that have on you being able to commit and complete and 

be able to plan for the jobs you need to do as far as what Congress 

has asked you to do? How is it affecting your mission? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, for us to operate under a continuing resolution we’re constrained to basically the amount of funding that we 

used for the same period of time during 2010. The way that most 

of our work occurs it’s the larger projects that occur later in the 

year during more of the summertime. So under a continuing resolution it inhibits us to be able to put together our projects, actually 

start to award contracts even for work that will be done later on 

because we can’t go forward with it. 

We cannot go forward with any of our large construction projects. 

We can’t go forward with any of our Forest Legacy projects that we 

proposed. So we do everything we can to kind of minimize the impact. 

But the reality of it is that it really reduces our ability to do the 

planning we need to do. Get the project prep done so that contracts 

can be awarded later this year and people can go to work. 

Senator MANCHIN. You’ve shared that with, I’m sure. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I have when I get asked. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. Hopefully we can resolve that for you. 

Also in West Virginia we had a tremendous problem with Gypsy 

Moths. I think you know about that. Ours is we don’t have the public lands that some States have. 

Most of ours is all fee simple. But the aerial program it just 

moves through our entire State, especially eastern. Has there been 

more of an effort to work with the States on that? 
26 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. You know, the approach to a pest 

like Gypsy moth we have to take this all lands landscape scale approach and especially in places like your State where we work together not only with the States but all the other Federal programs. 

So we can bring all the resources together. With the Gypsy moths 

we’ve been having some success by taking this approach. 

It just doesn’t work for any one land owner. 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Or for the Federal Government to just deal with 

the issue on their lands when you have the infestation that’s just 

across the boundary. 

Senator MANCHIN. Also we had in a lot of our pines and I can’t 

think of the blight that hit the pines, but I’m sure you might know 

about. We were having problems with that also. I don’t know if you 

all have been involved in that process of working with our States? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. We talk a lot about the bark beetles out West. 

But we definitely have bark beetles in the South and in the East 

too. 

We’ve been having a little more success in this part of the country because of our restoration work that we’re doing in the forests. 

We’ve been able to kind of stay ahead of it. That’s one of the things 

when I get asked about well, could we move funding from some of 

our Eastern forests out to our Western forests to deal with the bark 

beetle infestation out there? 

The problem with that is that if we slow down the work that 

we’re currently doing in this part of the country you’ll see the bark 

beetle infestations that occur on the East and the South start to 

increase. I know some would like to see us have that level of flexibility, but we’re not about to slow down what we’re doing right now 

because we’re at a good maintenance level. 

We’re getting the restoration done. We’re being able to kind of 

hold the beetles in check. So that’s just one of the challenges that 

we have because we have these problems everywhere. I don’t want 

anyone to believe that we don’t have pest issues here in the East. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Welcome, Chief Tidwell. 

It’s my understanding that you had a role in changing the way 

that recommended wilderness areas on the forest lands, the way 

that they’re managed in Region One before you became Chief that 

you had a role in that. Would explain how Region One dealt with 

the recommended wilderness areas? Tell us what plans the Forest 

Service at the Headquarters level has, if any, to address recommended forest areas—wilderness areas? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, when I was the regional forester in our 

Northern region we continued with some guidance. It was just 

guidance to our forest supervisors that when they were going 

through the planning process to consider which areas should be 

recommended to Congress for consideration as wilderness. Our 

guidelines encourage them to look at the current ongoing uses and 

to factor that into their decisions. 

If you had a lot of established motorized use, a lot of snowmobile 

use that was in that area, and even though there were strong wilderness characteristics for those lands, that you should factor in 
27 

those current, ongoing uses into your recommendation. Then based 

on a decision and based on the public input that if the recommendation was for certain lands to be considered by Congress 

for wilderness that we’re required to be able to maintain those wilderness characteristics until some time when Congress would act. 

So we want to do a better job on our recommendations to make 

sure that what we are recommending was something that not only 

Congress should consider. But definitely held wilderness characteristics and then to be able to maintain those. To the point not to 

encourage non-compatible use until Congress can act. 

I’ve seen some situations where we’ve made decisions that there 

was in some cases quite a bit of motorized activity in these areas. 

We went ahead and made a decision to recommend that. Then by 

the time Congress has the opportunity to look at it the controversy 

is so great you really don’t have a lot of decision space left. 

I think it’s a better approach to factor that into the front end in 

our recommendations. Then we make a recommendation to be able 

to discourage non-compatible uses until Congress can have the opportunity to consider these recommendations. Ideally, and it would 

be my desire, that as soon as the forest completed their Forest Plan 

revision that those recommendations would come to Congress. Congress could act on that. 

I think by having a lot of areas that are recommended for wilderness, lot of areas that are under wilderness study areas that go on 

for years, I think it just adds to the overall controversy about wilderness. I think if we could find a way to be able to work in a way 

that it would be a little bit, I guess, earlier for Congress to be able 

to consider these I think it would go a long way to resolve some 

of the conflict around these recommendations. 

Senator LEE. So as to allow the decision to be made by Congress 

rather than at the Administrative level, in other words? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Only Congress can designate wilderness. 

Senator LEE. Great. 

The Forest Service’s proposed budget includes $90 million for additional land acquisition. This is very troubling to me because I 

come from a State where the Federal Government owns two-thirds 

of our land. Then exempts itself from taxation on those lands. 

So this proposal raises some consternation. Especially at a time 

when we’re running an annual deficit estimated to be in the range 

of $1.6, $1.7 trillion in the hole. But it raises additional concerns 

in my State given that as you acquire more land that’s even less 

land that we can tax. 

We are 51st in the Nation in terms of per student school funding 

and there are a number of causes for that. But one of the biggest 

contributing factors, if not the biggest is that we can’t tax twothirds of our land because it’s owned by the Federal Government. 

So how many additional acres is the Federal Government proposing 

to purchase? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’ll get you that number what we would 

plan to accomplish with our request. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
28 

THE FOREST SERVICE PLANS ON ACQUIRING 33,156 ACRES WITH THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 

BUDGET REQUEST OF $90 MILLION FOR THE LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM. 

Senator LEE. But you’ve got to have an acreage figure in mind 

because you’ve got a specific dollar amount in mind. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, we also include a list of projects that’s part 

of our request. So we submit a list of projects for Congress to consider. We don’t move ahead with any of those projects unless Congress agrees on that. 

Senator LEE. Can you tell me on average how much it costs for 

the Forest Service to maintain an acre of land? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know we manage 192 million acres of National 

Forest System lands along with our, you know, State and private 

programs. So and we do that with the budget that we receive each 

year. So I guess, if there was a—I think as far as to how much the 

cost per acre. It varies depending on the activities. 

It’s not, you know, it’s more of what occurring on that land, the 

level of restoration activities, the construction activities that are occurring, you know. That’s what determines, you know, the price. 

Senator LEE. Sure. Sure. I understand. 

Just like land generally. The price of land is going to vary from 

one acre to another. Not all acres are created equal. It’s going to 

cost a different amount of money to manage one acre than another. 

But I would like to know. It may take you some time. You can 

respond later if you’d like. Would like to know what the average 

management cost is so if you take into account the total management related budget that you’ve got verses how many acres that 

you manage. That would be good to know. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we’ll get back to you with that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

IN FISCAL YEAR 2010, WE SPENT AN AVERAGE OF $26 PER ACRE TO MANAGE NATIONAL

FOREST LANDS. THIS FIGURE TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL FISCAL YEAR

2010 APPROPRIATION MINUS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, STATE AND PRIVATE

FORESTRY EXCEPT FOREST HEALTH, LAND ACQUISITION, AND UNSPENT FLAME 

FUNDS. THIS FIGURE IS ONLY THE AMOUNT SPENT IN FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND IS NOT

THE TOTAL AMOUNT NEEDED TO MANAGE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS ON A PER ACRE

BASIS. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. I see my time is expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few 

quick follow-ups, if I may. 

Chief, I had asked about the delay in decisions. The fact that 

things go up to the Secretary level as they relate to inventoried 

roadless areas. My staff has reminded me that even though you’ve 

indicated it only takes a couple of hours possibly to make decisions, 

in Alaska we’ve seen 2 situations recently: it took about a year to 

win a simple permit for a microwave tower that was to be placed 

by a phone company in the Chugach National Forest, and then a 

similar period of time for a mine outside of Juneau to get approval 

for a permit in a roadless area. 

It used to, apparently, take a couple weeks which I think would 

be reasonable. But I’m told it’s taking longer. I think that that is 

the point that we were trying to make. We don’t need continued 

delays. If it has to go up to yet another level it causes varying degrees of complication and frustration. 
29 

I wanted to ask you about the Alaska Subsistence Program the 

Chairman had mentioned in one of his questions. This was one of 

those programs where the program is being defunded in your budget here. Can you explain to me how and by whom the work within 

the Alaska Subsistence Program will be performed if we’re eliminating the program? How are we going to do this? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, the same people that have been doing this 

work in the past will continue which are many of the folks I mean, 

not only Forest Service folks, but then we also hire folks to help, 

you know, local people in the villages to do this work. So the program implementation will stay the same. The only difference is 

that there just wouldn’t be a budget line item for the program. 

So all this is is an accounting process that just helps our accounting system a little bit better. But as far as on the ground activities 

they will not change the people that worked in this program last 

year, the year before, the year before that. We’ll continue to do 

that. As you well know this is an essential program that we will 

continue to provide the level of funding. 

The other advantage of not having a separate budget line item 

is if something occurs that’s unforeseen at this time, and we need 

to actually use more funding. In the past having a separate line 

item we’d have to then—we could spend right up to that zero 

amount and then we could use some of our other funds to do the 

other work. 

It just creates an additional accounting process for—we cannot 

overspend $1 of any budget line item even on these relatively small 

ones or we’re subject to anti-deficiencies. So it just provides some 

accounting flexibility. We can work with a budget line item like we 

always have in the past. We could make that work. But, you know, 

as far as on the ground there will be no changes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you this because you gave that 

explanation to the Chairman. His inquiry was about the Valles 

Caldera. There are 3 programs that are defunded, so to speak. But 

you’re telling me that the work will still get done, and it’s just an 

accounting situation. 

Will the funds that I hope to be directed for the Alaska Subsistence program come from Senator Bingaman’s Valles Caldera operational account? It seems to me that the funding has to come from 

somewhere. It must be reflected somewhere. 

I don’t want to get bogged down in the weeds here on accounting 

issues. But if it means that this is a little bit of smoke and mirrors 

when it comes to the budget I think that’s important for us to 

know. If it means that we’re going to be robbing from Peter to pay 

Paul, or robbing from Jeff to pay Lisa, for programs within our 

States, I think we need to understand that as well. 

At this point in time I’m still not clear as to how this would actually work. Perhaps you can work with our staffs a little bit to provide a little more clarification. 

I wanted to ask one more question related to access. In response 

to Senator Barrasso’s question on land acquisition, how can you as 

an agency, when you’re not able to maintain the lands that you 

have currently, acquire additional lands? 
30 

You spoke about the issue of access, saying you want to be providing access. We have problems in Alaska regarding access and 

my constituents are contacting me about it. 

We’ve got some small placer miners in the State that have been 

informed that the Forest Service is planning to restrict motorized 

access to some mining claims that are located in the Chugach, and 

also within the Tongass. While some of this may be the result of 

closing some old logging roads that aren’t needed any longer, some 

of the complaints appear unconnected to budgetary concerns. 

I guess I would like to hear from you what you believe the reason 

is for denying these mining operators within the Chugach their opportunity to access their lands. Because this is, as you know, this 

is a big deal for these smaller operators within the State there. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I will look into that situation there in the 

Chugach and get back to you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Land Management Plans are completed under authority of the requirements of 

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Chugach National Forest 

closed a number of roads and trails to motorized access in 2002, as directed by the 

unit’s Land Management Plan, which was revised that year. Those roads and trails 

were closed based on environmental and economic concerns and were done so with 

the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Motorized access to mining operations in areas otherwise closed to motorized use on 

the Chugach National Forest is routinely allowed for mining purposes by written 

authorization under a Mining Plan of Operations, per 36 CFR 228.4. 

Prior to mining activities, the miners must develop and submit a Plan of Operations, which will address access needs. The Plan of Operations requires NEPA compliance and will enable the Forest to identify reasonable access pursuant to the proposed mining activities. Stipulations may include restrictions seasonally to protect 

resource values such as road or trail improvements with due consideration of the 

particular and unique needs of the mining operating plan. 

Forest visitors are subject to the same motorized access restrictions, including 

those engaged in nonprofit recreational mining. However, the Forest has provided 

maps to the Gold Prospectors Association of America (GPAA) showing locations open 

to the public that are easily accessible near open roads and/or that can be accessed 

with off road vehicles. The Forest has also provided hundreds of GOLD PANNING 

brochures (2010 version) to the association. 

But, you know, we recognize we have a responsibility to provide 

reasonable access. Whether it’s to a mining claim whether it’s to 

the private property, you know, we have a responsibility to do that. 

So I’ll look into this situation and get back to you. 

It’s, I mean, access is important. It’s essential to private landowners. It’s essential to mining operations. But it’s also really essential to recreationists. 

What I was referring to with our LWCF acquisitions is that 

there’s a lot of places in parts of this country where the private 

landowner, for whatever reason, and sometimes they have good 

reason, that they shut the gates and don’t allow people to cross 

their property to get onto the National Forest system lands. That’s 

what we try to focus on is to be able to work out with a conservation easement to be able to work with the landowner. Or sometimes it’s just that it takes acquisition to be able to acquire that 

property so that the public can still have access to the National 

Forests. 

So all access is important. We hear just constant requests for us 

to be able to do more to be able to maintain the access along with 
31 

our legal responsibility to provide it for private landowners and for 

mining operations. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’d like to follow up with you on this to 

make sure that we’re not embarking on a policy now or what would 

appear to result in a policy where we’re further restricting access. 

As you point out we’re obligated to provide that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Shaheen, we’re into the second round and you have not 

yet asked a first round of questions. So go ahead and ask any questions you have. Then we’ll continue with the second round. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, I apologize for missing your testimony this morning and much of this hearing. I had another hearing. But I did 

want to be here to ask some questions that I think are important 

to my home State of New Hampshire. 

Because New Hampshire is the second most heavily forested 

State in the country biomass and our timber industry are very important to the State. They are becoming increasingly important as 

we look at what options we have in New Hampshire and Northern 

New England to replace oil. We have about 50 percent of our 

households that are dependent on oil to heat. It’s even higher in 

the State of Maine. 

So we’re looking at what alternatives we have. So I’m particularly interested in what your department is doing about biomass 

and how you’re working with other agencies to address that. I was 

pleased to see the budget proposal was not the deep reduction that 

I thought it might be. 

But particularly if you could address the Community Wood Energy program that was established in the 2008 Farm bill and it’s 

designed to help local communities with using wood energy systems. We have a number of communities in New Hampshire that 

are very interested in that. So can you talk about what you’re 

doing and whether the proposed budget that the President has requested meets the needs that you’re seeing out there in the States 

and communities? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, our request, our budget request does in- clude $5 million under this program that was provided in the 2008 

Farm bill. This will be the first year that we’ve been able to use 

that authorization. So these funds along with our other programs 

that provide grants to help encourage new facilities to help make 

use of the biomass. 

The biomass that you so well know is that we’re not talking 

about the saw logs. We’re talking about the residual material that 

we have to find a way to use it or just pay somebody to pile it and 

burn it and put smoke in the air. That’s what we’re really focused 

on. 

So any way that we can make better use of that material and 

thus offset some of our demand on fossil fuels. But at the same 

time it also reduces the cost of the restoration work that has to 

occur to be able to maintain these forests that your State enjoys. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Can you also talk a little bit about how or if 

you’re working with other agencies to encourage looking at the uses 

for biomass? 
32 

I had the opportunity to talk to Secretary or to question Secretary Chu when he was here talking about programs within the 

Department of Energy. It wasn’t clear to me that there was real 

coordination going on around potential uses of biomass. It seems to 

me that it’s a huge resource that we could really be using much 

better. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. 

We work with the Department of Energy, the Rural Utility Service and Rural Development and also with Farm Services to be able 

to put together proposals that we’re using all the various government programs that are available right now to be able to kind of 

put that together in a package. We’re currently looking at the opportunity for 48 different facilities around the country with the Department of Energy so that we can find the best way the government can work together to help support, encourage the establishment of this additional infrastructure. So we can show people that 

this is a good thing to do and to be able to help them to get started 

on it. So that’s the effort that we’re doing together. 

It’s one of the things that we recognize we need to do more of. 

It’s just essential that we bring all the Federal programs together 

at once. Whether it’s the Forest Service working with one community or it’s the Department of Energy. 

Whoever has that lead needs to be able to bring all the programs 

together to make it a lot easier on these communities instead of 

having five or six different meetings. They should have to have 

only one. We should be able to deliver all the programs. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good. So if we call your office, you can tell us 

how to get to that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That coordinated effort. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator SHAHEEN. OK. Thank you. 

Let me just ask one final question. The Androscoggin Headwaters Land Conservation project in Northern New Hampshire is 

very important to the watershed throughout the State. It’s a key 

priority for our conservation community. 

There is funding in the current budget request for that project. 

But as I’m sure you know that the continuing resolution that we’ve 

seen passed in the House would make significant cuts to the Land 

and Water Conservation program that will help fund that. Can you 

just talk about how the cuts that are being proposed to LWCF 

what impact that would have on local projects like our 

Androscoggin Headwaters project? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for your leadership with this 

project. This is another example of multiple Federal agencies working together, not only with the Forest Service but some of the Interior agencies are a partner along with the communities in this 

project. For the FY11 Forest Legacy priority list it was ranked at 

No. 8. So it’s ranked very high. Again for 2012, the second phase 

it is ranked No. 9. 

If there’s significant cuts to Forest Legacy it will not be able to 

go forward with these projects. As you are well aware under a CR 

we’re not able to move forward with it even in FY11 until we do 

have a budget. 
33 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just following up on using ag-mediation services in the national 

appeals process and USDA, our mediation service people indicate 

that under the Forest Service rules it doesn’t allow you to go to agmediation when you’re negotiating long term grazing agreements. 

Are you willing to look at your rules so that you can and will go 

to ag-mediation when negotiating those long term grazing agreements? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know Senator, I do believe that our process 

that we have in place does work very well if there is a disagreement with a decision, especially with our grazing agreements. It’s 

just essential that we’re able to work together. With the Grazing 

Association to be able to sit down with the Forest Service and we’d 

reach agreements about what needs to be in that agreement and 

then they’d be able to move forward. 

Grazing agreements do not have any effect on the number of cattle that are run. It doesn’t result in any reductions and in livestock 

that are permitted out there. It’s just more of a basically, an agreement about how we’re going to work the roles and responsibilities 

of the Grazing Association, the expectations, what the association 

can expect from the agency. So it’s essential that we have those in 

place especially with our Grazing Associations. 

But I do think the best approach on that is to be able to insist 

that people come together. They work out their differences before 

the agreement is put into place verses to have another process— 

because I think that would just discourage people from working together on the front end of it if you have another process that you 

can go to. So that’s where I feel our current process works. 

I would just want to continue to encourage our ranchers to be 

able to come together. If it takes a little more time to sit down and 

work out those differences of opinion that’s the best place. That’s 

the best time verses having anything whether it’s going through an 

appeal process or going through mediation. 

If you really want folks to be able to work together I think they 

just need to take the time to work it out. Then we can reach agreement. Then we can move forward in a way that I think it will be 

much more productive for everyone involved. 

Senator HOEVEN. I appreciate that. No question that’s what 

should be done on the front end. Then if they’re not able to reach 

resolution are you willing to go to either mediation services or to 

the appeals process that USDA has? That’s my question to you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We’d have to change our regulations to do that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Are you willing to look at doing that or that 

something that we would have to try to do legislatively then? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’d like to work with you on this and 

maybe to gain a little more understanding. I have a lot of experience dealing with ranchers throughout my career. I worked in the 

northern region. I’m very familiar with grazing agreements and the 

Grazing Association. 

But I would like, if you’d be willing to, I could work with you to 

have a better understanding of this issue. Then we could maybe 

based on that be able to move forward. 
34 

Senator HOEVEN. I would very much appreciate that including 

extending an invitation for you to come out to our State as well and 

visit with some of the ranchers and so forth. That may be helpful 

too. But let’s do that including perhaps—would you be willing 

maybe to come out to the State and even discuss this issue with 

our ranchers? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I’d love the opportunity to get out into the field. 

That’s why I started work in the Forest Service. It seems it’s pretty 

rare now the days I ever get to go out. So I’d appreciate an invitation to come out. 

Senator HOEVEN. Great. That’d be good. I hereby extend that to 

you. We’ll work with you on that. 

The other thing is in going through the scientific process for 

rangeland management the other thing I’d like to, I guess, to put 

out there for you to respond to is at North Dakota State University 

we have incredible rangeland scientists. Talk about using those individuals in the process with your own experts. I think that brings 

credibility and help and maybe a feeling of reaching out to our 

ranchers when you include our rangeland scientists. Obviously, I 

mean, they’re experts. 

Your reaction to that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I agree with you that’s an excellent approach. I 

mean we do a lot of work not only at your universities, but also 

throughout the country the universities and colleges. I think that 

that is the best way to be able to bring people together. So that 

we have the science there and if it’s the folks that are from North 

Dakota, often there is additional benefits that if they’re hearing it 

from people that are there in North Dakota that it often helps resolve some of these issues. 

Senator HOEVEN. I appreciate that. 

The other thing is working with NRCS. I think, you know, given 

that this is ranchland. That this is the grasslands rather than a 

forest both from the standpoint of our farmers and ranchers as well 

as bridging with your own people, NRCS can be helpful as well. 

Your thoughts? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. Just another example of where the Federal 

Government needs to do a better job to work together. So like your 

ranchers whether it’s the Forest Service or NRCS that they’re visiting with or working with whoever it is from the Federal Government should understand all the programs that are available. So 

we’re working together because especially up in your State those 

ranching operations they’re not solely dependent on just the grasslands. 

It’s also on their own private land. So we’ve got to be able to 

work that together so that it works for them over time. That means 

we’ve got to have the flexibility as if we had a fire that goes 

through either their private land or through the National Forest, 

we’ve got to be able to work together to have that flexibility so that 

they stay in business. 

You know one of the greatest benefits we have from our ranching 

community is the wildlife habitat, the open space that they provide 

verses having their lands being converted to some form of development. So it’s just essential that we work together to keep those 

folks on the landscape. 
35 

Senator HOEVEN. Appreciate that, Chief. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, did you have additional 

questions? 

Senator Hoeven, did you have anything else you wanted to ask 

before we adjourn the hearing? 

Senator HOEVEN. The only other thing I would just comment on, 

Chief, is I think the other helpful aspect of perhaps having you 

come out and having that dialog is that I think ranchers, county 

commissioners and others that live out on the grasslands can also 

come up with ideas that you may agree with that can help you save 

dollars too in these times of tight budgets. So I think that may be 

an added benefit of that whole discussion. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I would appreciate that. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. OK. Thanks, Chief. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief Tidwell, thank you very much for your 

time. We appreciate your good work. That will adjourn our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following statement was received for the record.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAN POLING, VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL & 

CORPORATE SECRETARY, AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

The American Forest & Paper Association is the national trade association of the 

forest products industry, representing pulp, paper, packaging and wood products 

manufacturers, and forest landowners. Our companies make products essential for 

everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment. 

The forest products industry accounts for approximately 5 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP. Industry companies produce about $175 billion in products annually and employ nearly 900,000 men and women, exceeding employment 

levels in the automotive, chemicals and plastics industries. The industry meets a 

payroll of approximately $50 billion annually and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 states. 

Declining federal timber harvests have adversely affected many rural communities, resulting in thousands of jobs lost. Actions are needed to restore and increase 

federal timber harvest to help ensure adequate fiber supply and address forest 

health priorities. Within the jurisdiction of this committee, we urge you to direct the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to help sustain the forest products industry and the vital 

jobs it supports. Specific suggestions follow. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST PRODUCTS

The President’s Budget Request for the National Forest System (NFS) again proposes to create an ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration’’ account, incorporating NFS 

programs previously funded under a slew of line items into a single $864 million 

dollar line item. AF&PA understands the Administration’s desire to ‘‘accelerate the 

refocusing of national forest management to forest ecosystem restoration project 

work, including global climate change adaptation and mitigation.’’ However, we do 

not feel that specifically delineating $80 million from IRR for Priority Watershed 

Projects is appropriate without further explanation of how this fund would be used. 

We also question why the Administration has designated $40 million for the Collaborative Forest Restoration Fund (CFLRF); the CFLRF originally was intended to 

be funded with ‘‘new’’ money, not through diversion from other program funding. 

To create forest industry jobs, more federal timber should be made available for 

sale.—At a time when most Americans are concerned about jobs and the economy, 

studies indicate that the USFS timber sale program could produce over 6,000 direct 

and indirect jobs with an annual infusion of $57 million into the forest products line 

item while improving the health and reducing the fire risk of forest ecosystems. 

FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

Targeted research and data collection is needed to support forest productivity, forest health, and economic utilization of fiber. The Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) program within Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) is the back-
36 

bone of our knowledge about the nation’s forests, and is a vital technical resource 

that allows assessment of the sustainability, health, and availability of the forest 

resource. FIA is utilized by a large swath of stakeholders interested in the state of 

America’s forests: forest resource managers at mills, land managers, conservation 

groups, and State and Federal agencies all look to the program for data about our 

nation’s forests. 

The Administration has demonstrated an interest in a sustainable renewable biomass industry through actions in many agencies. With an increased focus on utilizing woody biomass, we do not understand why the administration is proposing 

to cut funding to the very program that allows managers to determine sustainability 

of the forest resource? We oppose these unilateral cuts to this valuable program. 

The Forest Resources Information and Analysis (FRIA) program under the Cooperative Forestry budget compliments the FIA by providing cost-share assistance 

through State contributions to the FIA program. This assistance allows states to improve the ongoing FIA assessments offered through R&D by improving sampling 

resolution, increasing sampling frequency, and tailoring assessments to address 

State-specific forest resource needs. Reducing FRIA would hinder the abilities of 

States to implement Renewable Portfolio Standards while ensuring the sustainability and productivity of forests. 

The full funding level needed for these programs is $76 million for the FIA program and $5 million for the FRIA program, which would allow the Forest Service 

to cover 100 percent of U.S. forest lands, expedite data availability and analysis, 

and support our growing data needs in the areas of bioenergy and climate mitigation. 

INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY

AF&PA’s believes that full and effective implementation and enforcement of the 

2008 Lacey Act amendments will reduce the destructive impacts of illegal logging 

on tropical forests, enable American forest product companies to compete on a level 

playing field, and contribute to one of the least expensive ways of cutting global 

greenhouse gas emissions—reduced deforestation and unsustainable forest management. A 2005 AF&PA report on illegal logging found that up to 10 percent of global 

timber production could be of suspicious origin and that illegal logging depresses 

world prices for legally harvested wood by seven to 16 percent on average. The report also calculated that if there were no illegally harvested wood in the global market, the estimated value of U.S. wood exports could increase by over $460 million 

each year. 

The USFS International Forestry program lends critical technical assistance for 

Lacey Act implementation and to improve sustainable forest management practices 

in developing countries which help reduce illegal logging overseas. The International 

Forestry program has been completely cut from the Administration’s FY 2012 budget. Although the Administration claims the Forest Service will conduct its highest 

priority international work under existing Forest Service authorities, it is unclear 

if funding for Lacey related activities will continue to be available and where it 

would be derived. Despite a budget allocation for USDA’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) Lacey Act account in the President’s FY 2012 for the 

first time ($1.5 million), AF&PA believes cuts to the International Forestry accounts 

could be detrimental to full Lacey Act compliance and enforcement efforts. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

AF&PA applauds the Committee’s sustained support for USFS State and Private 

Forestry programs. With ongoing droughts, invasive species infestations, and significant forest health problems, private forest resources remain vulnerable to damage 

from threats that do not respect public/private boundary lines. 

As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the nation’s wood fiber supply, 

while also sequestering huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and supplying clean drinking water for millions of 

Americans. USFS State and Private Forestry programs protect these resources from 

threats beyond the capability of small landowners to effectively combat. Therefore, 

we urge funding at no less than their FY2010 enacted levels of $49 million for Cooperative Forest Health, $39 million for Cooperative Fire Assistance, $29 million for 

Forest Stewardship, and $76 million for Forest Legacy. 
(37) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Managing grazing allotments and completing NEPA analysis on grazing allotments is vital to grazing permittees. Last year only 53% or 248 of the targeted 460 allotments received NEPA analysis. This year the Forest Service target 

is to complete 360 NEPA allotments. However, the proposed budget is cutting $5.2 

million from Grazing Management. Given the backlog of allotments needing NEPA 

analysis and the difficulty in completing them, why are resources being cut? 

Answer. a)‘‘Given the backlog of allotments needing NEPA analysis and the difficulty in completing them, why are resources being cut?’’ 

Tough budget times call for tough budget choices. The FY 2012 President’s Budget proposes $45,445,000 for Grazing Management. Funding at this level balances multiple public priorities that are provided by the Forest Service. Range Management 

maintains two activities: managing livestock grazing on approximately 90 million 

acres of national forest system land and completing National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis on grazing allotments in accordance with the NEPA schedule 

established under the provisions of the Rescissions Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-19, section 

504). 

b) ‘‘Do you believe you will complete the 360 targeted NEPA allotments?’’ 

Answer. In FY 2010, the Forest Service completed National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis for 248 allotments of the targeted 460 allotments. Several factors contributed to the shortfall in NEPA accomplishments, including increased complexity of analysis, increased workload associated with appeals and litigation, and 

increased costs of gathering comprehensive resource condition and trend data to 

support decisions. 

Based on field input and past performance the NEPA analysis target was realigned in FY 2012. The target is to complete NEPA analysis for 360 allotments in 

FY 2012. We believe we can achieve this target, but this will be impacted by challenges similar to those the Forest Service has previously faced and are likely to continue in FY 2012. 

Question 2. The President’s recent speech and press release promoting his Great 

Outdoors Initiative included comments to provide more ‘‘access’’ for the public to reconnect to the outdoors. Yet, the Administration’s budget proposal calls for a $3 million reduction in the Trails budget and $79 million to decommission 2,185 miles of 

road. These two proposals do not appear to be consistent with the Initiative. Why 

reduce the trails budget and decommission more roads—thus eliminating access— 

when the stated objective is increased public access and connectivity to our public 

lands? 

Answer. A reduction in funding does not equate to a reduction in ‘‘access’’. The 

discussion around access in the Great Outdoors Initiative is focused on land acquisition, the forest legacy program, and community forests and open spaces. Your question specifically addressed the type of access provided by roads and trails. The FY 

2012 President’s Budget request provides funds to continue to operate and maintain 

our network of National Forest System (NFS) trails. The regions and forests work 

together to set priorities for maintaining and improving trails. We understand the 

importance of Forest Service trails to provide access for the public to the national 

forests. We continue to seek opportunities with partners to leverage resources to 

maintain trails in order to establish a new generation of trail stewards. 

Currently the Forest Service has approximately 370,000 miles of system roads. 

Each year, we decommission less than 1% of this total. Many of the roads we decommission are user-created routes that are not part of the designated system, or are 

not needed for access to the national forests, and are causing significant environmental damage. 
38 

Decommissioning unneeded roads and trails eliminates adverse environmental effects and actually contributes to keeping our ability to maintain other access points. 

Decommissioning is essential to operating a safe and sustainable transportation system. 

Question 3. Wildland fires are extremely detrimental to watersheds and local communities. Increased erosion, loss of habitat, species and economic opportunities are 

the result. There are currently millions of acres of dead and dying timber in the 

west due to the bark beetle. With such a perilous scenario, what is the justification 

for cutting 19% or $396 million from Wildland Fire Management? 

Answer. The Forest Service is committed to redeeming its wildland fire management mission and responsibly budgeting for wildland fire management. The agency’s 

Wildland Fire Management budget request provides sufficient funding to manage 

wildfires and maintain prior-year readiness levels, and provides funding for other 

high priority projects in the federal government. The President’s budget is formulated to balance the important activities of different program areas, with some program reductions necessary to exercise appropriate fiscal prudence. 

The budget also recognizes the importance of integrating fire as a critical natural 

process in land and resource management plans and activities, reintroducing fire 

into ecosystems, managing wildfire across landownership boundaries, and applying 

the best available science. To this end, a portion of the $396 million reduction (22%) 

is actually due to the shift in non-WUI hazardous fuels and Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration funds to the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) account. 

The bulk of the remaining reduction amount is due to the cancellation of prior year 

unobligated suppression funds. Because the FY 2009 and FY 2010 fire seasons were 

less severe than usual, significant funding was carried over from suppression and 

FLAME into FY 2011. Carryover may also occur in FY 2012 and, as such, this budget proposes a rescission of some of the anticipated carryover in FY 2012 to help provide funding for other high priority projects in the federal government. Even with 

the proposed reduced funding in suppression and FLAME, and the proposed rescission, the suppression and FLAME levels proposed in FY 2012 fully fund the 10-year 

average. Since the submission of the President’s Budget bills specifying a rescission of $200 million in Suppression carryover from P.L. 112-6 and a rescission of $200 million 

in FLAME carryover in the C.R. funding the government for the remainder of the 

year (P.L. 112-10) have been enacted. Funding in Suppression and FLAME for FY 

2011 and the new appropriations requested in FY 2012 remains sufficient to cover 

the 10-year average. 

RESPONSE OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. The acquisition of the Vallecitos High Country Ranch has been a high 

priority for New Mexicans and the Forest Legacy Program in recent years. The 

project is a three-phase project, with phase I already completed using FLP funds 

and Phase II proposed for funding in your FY 2011 FLP budget as the #16 project 

in the nation (out of 38 total). Yet, with a proposed programmatic increase in FY 

2012 of $59 million and an increase in the total number of projects funded to 46, 

completing the Vallecitos High Country Ranch is not listed on your priority list for 

FY 2012. Can you explain why completing that project is not a priority for the Administration and how the Administration plans to work with the landowner if the 

project is suspended before it is complete? 

Answer. The Forest Legacy Program project priority list is developed each year 

through a national competitive process. The objective of the process is to identify 

the best projects in the country submitted for consideration in a given year. Previous funding is not a guarantee of future funding as new phases of a project must 

compete with different projects than the previous phases. Another consideration 

that could impact where a project is on the list is that the scoring guidance, which 

guides how projects are ranked in the competitive process, is adjusted each year 

based on lessons learned from the previous year’s competitive process. This adjustment and clarification of scoring criteria could have an impact on how competitive 

a project is. 

The Vallecitos project is a State and not a Federal project. The funds are provided 

to the State through a grant, and it is the State that has the lead in working with 

the landowner to bring the project to completion if that is the State’s objective. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Tongass Timber Program: In 2008, the Forest Service committed to 

preparing and offering four 10-year timber sales with a volume of 150 to 200 million 

board feet each in the Tongass National Forest. The purpose of these timber sales 
39 

was to provide sufficient assured volume for a single-shift at four medium size manufacturing facilities. Without the volume assurance, the industry cannot make the 

investments necessary to upgrade their existing mills or to construct a facility that 

could process the low-grade timber in the region. Congress has repeatedly made 

available pipeline funds to allow the Forest Service to prepare these 10-year sales 

and other timber sales. Now we are told that the agency plans to convert two of 

the 10-year timber sales to Stewardship contracts and to offer only half of the promised volume and to offer that reduced volume in small parcels. Do you realize that 

when the Forest Service walks away from the commitments that it makes to Congress, you risk Congress walking away from funding many of the priorities the 

agency hopes to pursue? 

Answer. In response to Under Secretary Mark Rey’s direction in September 2008 

to develop a work plan and proposed budget to offer four ten-year timber sales, each 

averaging 15-20 million board feet per year, the Tongass National Forest identified 

several areas to analyze for 10-year sale programs. The agency shares the same objective in keeping a viable forest products industry in place in southeast Alaska, a 

necessary ingredient to achieve the Secretary’s restoration goals and the Transition 

Framework. 

The agency will work to provide viable levels of board feet over the course of five 

years to ensure the industry remains solvent. In both FY 2009 and FY 2010, the 

Alaska Region received appropriations sufficient to fund two of the four timber sale 

projects. The two 10-year timber sales funded by pipeline funds are currently in the 

planning stages, including NEPA compliance, and will continue to move forward in 

FY 2012 and FY 2013. Opportunities to incorporate restoration activities within the 

project areas are being explored and, where it is economically and logistically feasible, a stewardship contract may be used to implement those harvest and restoration activities. Stewardship contracting is one of the available tools that managers 

have at their disposal to implement resource management activities and to meet the 

resource objectives. The volume of timber to be sold with these two projects, including volume from stewardship contracting, is currently being estimated as a part of 

the NEPA analysis that is ongoing. These two projects are part of the overall Transition Framework for Southeast Alaska announced by the Department of Agriculture in May, 2010. 

ALASKA SUBSISTENCE PROGRAM

Question 2. How will the work that those individuals performed in recent years 

be impacted by the new duties they will be expected to take on? 

Answer. At this time, there are no changes being implemented for the Alaska 

Subsistence Program. The Subsistence Program delivery in FY 2012 would be similar to that implemented in FY 2010. The Subsistence Program is a Federal interagency responsibility administered by the Forest Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Forest Service will continue to meet its Subsistence Program management 

responsibilities under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

The same people will be performing the same work, just with different funds. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT

Question 3. As I understand it, you are proposing to take on the Bureau of Land 

Management’s payment responsibilities for their lands in Western Oregon under the 

Secure Rural Schools program. Is the BLM going to make contributions to the Forest Service to help cover the cost of the program and if so, how much? If not, are 

they planning to turn over management responsibilities on those lands to your agency so that the Forest Service can help generate the revenues it will need to cover 

the cost of the payments to the O&C Counties from the O&C Lands timber program? 

Answer. The Administration’s proposal for reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools 

Act would not transfer the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) administration of 

the O&C lands currently administered by the BLM, and would not transfer the responsibility for BLM’s payments to counties. The proposal is shown in the budget 

under the Forest Service merely for the simplicity of showing it in one place. Interagency transfers would be made to ensure that both the Forest Service and the 

BLM continue covering their respective share of the payments. The proposal would 

not fund payments from receipts generated from these lands, continuing the current 

arrangement under the Secure Rural Schools Act. 
40 

RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Question 4. About two weeks ago, we sent a bipartisan letter to the Secretary of 

Agriculture urging him to give final approval to the Resource Advisory Committees 

for the 14 remaining Resource Advisory Committees that have not been finalized. 

Can you tell me if the Secretary has approved the candidates that were nominated 

by the counties? 

Answer. We are pleased to report that as of March 11, 2011 the Secretary of Agriculture has appointed members to all of the Secure Rural Schools Act resource advisory committees chartered under the 2008 re-authorization. 

FOREST LAND ACQUISITION

Question 5. The Department has testified to Congress that the Forest Service has 

60-80 million acres of unhealthy productive forestland at risk to insects, disease, 

and wildfire. It has become increasingly apparent through missed targets, reduced 

outputs, increased reliance on managed fire (leaving more acres vulnerable to 

wildland fire damage), and a shift away from active forest management that the 

Forest Service cannot take care of the 193 million acres it already has. 

a. Can you give me any reason to use land acquisition rather than land exchanges to acquire important parcels inside National Forests? 

b. Several of your LWCF acquisition recommendations appear to include 

lands outside the National Forests. Can you provide the Committee with detailed descriptions for each of the proposed acquisitions that show where the 

lands are relative to other nearby Forest Service Lands? 

c. Also, what is average cost per acre expected to be? Could you have your 

staff provide a list of lands considered ‘‘excess’’ in the most recent forest plan 

document for each forest involved in each proposed acquisition? 

Answer a). Land acquisition can reduce management costs by consolidating landownership, avoiding further fragmented development within forest boundaries which 

can exacerbate fire, insect, and disease management challenges. Land acquisitions 

sought by the Forest Service have broad support by stakeholders at the local level 

and ensure water quality, recreational access, wildlife habitat, and other public benefits. The Forest Service actively engages in land exchanges where there are opportunities to adjust federal ownership patterns while conveying lands to non-federal 

entities. However, land exchanges are not always viable options, either because suitable lands are not available or because the complexity or controversy associated 

with an exchange makes the exchange impractical. Land exchanges, acquisitions, 

right-of-way acquisitions, and limited sales of Forest Service facilities and adjacent 

land are all important land adjustment tools to promote the long-term health and 

sustainability of the national forests and grasslands. 

b). ‘‘Several of your LWCF acquisition recommendations appear to include lands 

outside the National Forests. Can you provide the Committee with detailed descriptions for each of the proposed acquisitions that show where the lands are relative 

to other nearby Forest Service Lands?’’ 

In total, 33 out of 38 acquisition projects requested for FY 2012 are completely 

within National Forest Administrative boundaries. Of the remaining five, two are 

within congressionally designated areas. One of these projects is within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 

Area Act gives the Forest Service the authority to acquire lands in Special Management Areas (16 U.S.C. Sec. 544 G). The second of these two congressionally designated areas is the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. The Forest Service is the 

Administrator for the Trail and has authority to acquire lands and interests in land 

for the purposes of administering the trail (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1244 (a) (2)). The remaining three projects are directly adjacent to a national forest boundary and provide 

important recreational access and habitat connectivity to other federally administered or otherwise protected lands, especially in riparian areas. Please see the attached details below. 
41 

USDA FOREST SERVICE 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

LWCF Land Acquisition List 

President’s FY2012 Budget Recommendation 

Date: February 14, 2011 

Final 

Rank Project State National Forest 

Location of 

Forest/Congressional Boundary 

Recommended 

Funding 

Amount 

1 Hells Canyon 

NRA 

OR Wallowa-Whit- man 100% inside $1,417,500 

2 Salmon—Selway 

Initiative Area 

ID Salmon-Challis; 

Sawtooth 

100% inside $3,500,000 

3 Rocky Fork TN Cherokee 100% inside $5,000,000 

4 Shield Ranch AZ Coconino 100% inside $1,500,000 

5 Tenderfoot MT Lewis & Clark 100% inside $5,040,000 

6 Mont. Legacy 

Completion 

MT Lolo; Flathead 100% inside $5,000,000 

7 Cube Cove AK Tongass 100% inside $500,000 

8 Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail 

CA Multiple 100% Congressionally Designated Trail 

System 

$2,939,500 

9 Pacific NW 

Streams 

OR/WA Multiple 100% inside $2,265,000 

10 North Carolina 

Threatened 

Treasures 

NC NFs in NC 100% inside $3,576,000 

11 Great Lakes/ 

Great Lands 

(upper) 

MI Hiawatha; Ottawa 100% inside $1,500,000 

12 Ophir Valley CO Uncompahgre 100% inside $4,040,000 

13 Unita-WasatchCache UT Uinta-WasatchCache 100% inside $1,200,000 

14 Washington Cascade Ecosystem WA Wenatchee 100% inside $1,500,000 

15 Miranda Canyon 

Property 

NM Carson 100% Adjacent $3,442,000 

16 Hoosier IN Hoosier 100% inside $2,100,000 

17 Bonneville 

Shoreline Trail 

UT Uinta-WasatchCache 100% inside $1,600,000 

18 Georgia Mountains & Rivers GA ChattahoocheeOconee 100% inside $2,000,000 

19 Missouri Ozarks MO Mark Twain 100% inside $1,500,000 

20 Mitchell Lakes CO San Juan 100% inside $1,300,000 

21 Hurdygurdy CA Six Rivers 100% inside $1,750,000 

22 Misty Fiords NM 

In holdings 

AK Tongass 100% inside $500,000 

23 Deer & Mill 

Creek Project 

CA Lassen 80% inside 

20% adjacent 

$1,500,000 

24 Fleming Ranch CA San Bernardino 100% inside $1,500,000 
42 

USDA FOREST SERVICE—Continued 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

LWCF Land Acquisition List 

President’s FY2012 Budget Recommendation 

Date: February 14, 2011 

Final 

Rank Project State National Forest 

Location of 

Forest/Congressional Boundary 

Recommended 

Funding 

Amount 

25 Sierra Nevada In 

holdings 

CA Tahoe; Eldorado 100% inside $2,000,000 

26 Upper Lochsa ID Clearwater 100% inside $1,000,000 

27 Pole Gulch— 

Greater Yellowstone Area 

MT Gallatin 100% inside $1,100,000 

28 Minnesota Wilderness MN Chippewa; Superior 100% inside $1,400,000 

29 Mississippi 

Riverfront Forest 

IL Shawnee 100% inside $1,000,000 

30 Columbia River 

Gorge NSA 

WA Gifford Pinchot; 

Mt. Hood 

100% inside National Scenic 

Area 

$1,230,000 

31 Greater Yellowstone Area ID* Caribou; 

Targhee 

100% inside $1,100,000 

32 Fiddleback 

Ranch 

WY Thunder Basin; 

Medicine Bow 

100% inside $1,500,000 

33 Wisconsin Wild 

Waterways 

WI ChequamegonNicolet 100% inside $1,000,000 

34 Rockcastle River 

Watershed 

KY Daniel Boone 100% inside $1,000,000 

35 Alabama Tracts AL NFs in Alabama 100% inside $1,000,000 

36 SC Landscape 

Protection 

SC Francis Marion; 

Sumter 

100% inside $1,000,000 

37 Plum Creek 

Tract 

LA Kisatchie 100% inside $1,000,000 

38 Suwannee Wildlife Corridor FL NFs in Florida 100% adjacent $1,000,000 

Total Purchase $72,500,000 

Acquisition Management $12,000,000 

Critical In holdings/Cash 

Equalization 

$5,500,000 

Total $90,000,000 

* Correction from FS Budget Justification 

c.1) ‘‘Also, what is average cost per acre expected to be?’’ 

For FY 2012, the approximate average purchase price is estimated to be $2,177 

per acre. Purchase price is determined by standard federal appraisal methods. The 

Forest Service cannot pay more than the value determined by the appraisal. The 

range among anticipated purchase price can vary significantly based upon geographical location and market conditions. For example, on the Land and Water Conservation Fund Land Acquisition List for FY 2012, Shield Ranch in Arizona, riverfront property between two national forests, is about $28,000 per acre. While the 

Fiddleback Ranch within the Thunder Basin National Grassland in Wyoming is 

about $714 per acre. 
43 

c.2) ‘‘Could you have your staff provide a list of lands considered ‘‘excess’’ in the 

most recent forest plan document for each forest involved in each proposed acquisition?’’ 

Forest Service plans do not delineate lands that are considered ‘‘excess’’. National 

forest land is not excess to agency needs or for public purposes of the National Forest System. When the Forest Service sells land or facilities we do so under limited 

authorities for purposes specified under Federal laws, such as the Small Tracts Act, 

Education Land Grant Act, or the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act (FSFREA). 

Question 6. Have you seen the Wall Street Journal article citing a booming market for timber sales in Asia? Alaska and the Pacific NW could be part of this. But 

you are not putting up sales even though U.S. Forest Service policy now permits 

some export of federal timber. Are you aware of how great the timber market is in 

China for Alaska timber? 

Answer. We are evaluating timber export options. In 2008 the regional forester 

for the Alaska Region recognized that the decline in domestic market demand and 

prices for forest products posed a significant threat to the stability and longevity of 

the remaining forest products infrastructure in Southeast Alaska. The export timber 

policy for Region 10 was modified to allow purchasers to ship up to 50% of the sale 

volume to the most advantageous markets outside of Alaska. Records indicate that 

a majority of the Federal timber volume shipped from Region 10 is going into the 

Chinese markets. 

Question 7. Last year your team promised a new transition for timber in Alaska. 

So far, we have seen nothing of this transition. Why not? What is the status? 

Answer. The Transition Framework for Southeast Alaska was announced by the 

Department of Agriculture in May 2010 as a joint effort by the Forest Service and 

Rural Development. As part of the Transition Framework that relates to forest management, the Tongass National Forest has developed an integrated 5-year program 

of work that will facilitate transition in Southeast Alaska from a forest management 

regime that depends primarily on harvesting mature old growth trees to one based 

increasingly on young forest management and restoration activities. This plan is 

posted on www.tongassfutures.net. The program of work will further the goals of the 

USDA Transition Framework, which is much broader than timber alone and includes the development of sustainable diversified economies throughout the region 

that are based on forest restoration, renewable energy, fisheries and marine aquaculture, subsistence, and tourism/recreation, while sustaining and transitioning a 

viable timber economy. An economic mapping study was completed in December of 

2010 and the broader strategic Transition Framework is due later this summer, as 

previously promised. 

Question 8. In 2008, the Forest Service committed to preparing and offering four 

10-year timber sales with a volume of 150 to 200 million board feet each. The purpose of these timber sales was to provide sufficient assured volume for a single-shift 

at four medium size manufacturing facilities. Without the volume assurance, the industry cannot make the investments necessary to upgrade their existing mills or to 

construct a facility that could process the low-grade timber in the region. Remember, the Forest Service has monopoly power over the timber supply in the region. 

Congress has repeatedly made available pipeline funds to allow the Forest Service 

to prepare these 10-year sales and other timber sales. Now we are told that the 

agency plans to convert two of the 10-year timber sales to Stewardship contracts 

and to offer only half of the promised volume and to offer that reduced volume in 

small parcels. 

The 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) provided an opportunity for 

the timber industry to harvest up to 267 million board feet per year, but the most 

recent timber sale schedule (which has been renamed a vegetation management 

schedule) indicates that Region 10 will be preparing and offering for sale only 128 

million board feet in 2012. Does your proposed budget for region 10 provide the 

funds necessary to prepare and offer this amount of timber? 

Answer. The FY 2012 expected National Forest System timber output is 2,616 

million board feet based on the President’s proposed budget. The Regional allocations including, Region 10, are currently not finalized, making it difficult to predict 

with certainty the expected forest products outputs. Fluctuations in timber values 

and the Region’s ability to transition to young stand management will influence 

final timber outputs levels. The FY 2012 President’s budget proposes $854,242 million for the National Forest System’s integrated resource restoration (IRR) program. 

This budget line item brings together key management resources necessary for 

maintaining and restoring watershed and forest health under one umbrella and directs funding to achieve priority work in the most important places. Established performance measures such as timber volume, road mileages, acres treated for haz-
44 

ardous fuels, and other outputs will continue to be used. Funding for IRR is pivotal 

to achieving increased timber targets, as well as other vegetation management targets. As a part of the FY 2012 proposal for Integrated Resource Restoration we will 

assign specific targets to each region. Line officers are held accountable, through 

performance reviews, for meeting assigned targets. As described above, in both FY 

2009 and FY 2010, the Alaska Region received appropriations sufficient to fund two 

of the four timber sale projects and some may be considered for stewardship contracting. We will continue to work through Transition Framework to provide theses 

sales. 

Question 9. The Region 10 5-year timber sale schedule indicated that the agency 

would be preparing and offering 152 million board feet of timber sales in fiscal year 

2011, but the most recent periodic timber sale announcement indicates that only 38 

million board feet will be offered this fiscal year. Are we likely to see a similar 

shortfall in timber sales offered in FY 2012? 

Answer. Timber sales offered in FY 2012 will vary due to many factors, and the 

periodic timber sale volume for FY 2012 has not yet been finalized. 

The forest will focus on achieving the goals and outcomes identified in the FY 

2012 budget. This includes a more integrated approach that involves bringing key 

management resources together for maintaining and restoring watersheds and forest health. All management activities are subject to the National Environmental 

Policy Act process. The Tongass National Forest is focused on achieving FY 2012 

targets and outcomes commensurate with available funding, prevailing economic 

conditions, and situations at given local levels. 

Question 10. The timber industry reports that the ongoing timber sale shortfalls 

are due in large part to constraints on available timber that were imposed by the 

2008 Tongass Land Management Plan. Further, the Secretary of Agriculture has 

withheld permission to offer timber in roadless areas even though roadless areas 

comprise half of the timberland available under the 2008 TLMP. 

The Forest Service has told us that they will not be permitted to construct any 

timber sale roads in Region 10 and further, they have been directed to destroy many 

miles of road. These roads were constructed at significant cost to allow access for 

timber harvest, land management activities and recreation. I understand the concern about costly road maintenance but remember, the timber industry has traditionally provided the necessary road maintenance in Region 10 and it is only because of the lack of timber sales that the industry is no longer performing road 

maintenance. It would be unnecessary to destroy these roads if the timber sale program in the region, and the thousands of jobs that accompanied the timber sale program, were restored. 

The Forest Service controls over 90% of the timberland in Southeast Alaska but, 

as a result of ongoing timber sale shortages, there is only one medium-size sawmill 

still operating in Region 10. What is your agency doing to correct this crisis? 

Answer. The Forest Service, USDA Rural Development, and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce are working together 

on a Transition Framework, which was outlined in a previous response. More information can be found about the Transition Framework at www.tongassfutures.net. 

Domestic and international market conditions over the past several years have 

made it difficult for domestic processors to operate in a profitable manner. Costly 

litigation has also added to the difficulties in successfully delivering timber sales. 

A new path, beyond timber sales, is needed. The Transition Framework, which is 

much broader than timber alone and includes the development of sustainable diversified economies through the region that are based on forest restoration, renewable 

energy, fisheries and marine aquaculture, subsistence, and tourism/recreation, while 

sustaining and transitioning a viable timber economy is due later this summer. 

In 2008 the export timber policy in Region 10 was changed to allow purchasers 

to ship up to 50% of the sale volume to the most advantageous markets outside of 

Alaska. The agency fully realizes the importance of the forest products industry in 

the delivery of forest management objectives. 

The Alaska Region is working diligently to prepare and offer timber sale volume 

in compliance with the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan and the 2001 

Roadless Rule. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to allow road construction and reconstruction in designated roadless areas, per Secretary of Agriculture’s Memorandum 1045-155 of May 28, 2010. The Tongass National Forest is 

adapting the way it manages roads to reduce resource impacts while allowing for 

future usage. The Forest is putting many of its roads in a stored condition as part 

of its travel management planning, which provides opportunities for public input. 

A stored road is one that the Forest Service intends to use again in the future, but 

that is temporarily closed. Placing roads in a stored condition allows the Agency to 

mitigate many of the environmental impacts that can occur due to lack of mainte-
45 

nance, while making the roads available for future land management activities. The 

FY 2012 President’s Budget request includes approximately $158 million for Road 

Construction and Maintenance, including an estimated $32 million for engineering 

support to vegetation projects. Of that, nearly $9 million is specifically planned for 

new road construction (approximately 4 to 6 miles) on the Tongass National Forest. 

Question 11. Would you please explain ‘‘species of conservation concern’’ as discussed in the draft Land Management Planning Rule? It seems from the definition 

provided in the draft that a ‘responsible official’ might have overly broad latitude 

to deem any number of species as a ‘‘species of conservation concern’’ without undergoing sufficient scientific review. 

Answer. The intent of the provisions in the new draft Planning Rule is to provide 

for plant and animal diversity, and to keep common species common, contribute to 

the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve candidate species, and 

protect species of conservation concern. Responsible officials would be required to 

develop components in plans, using a two-pronged approach of overall habitat (ecosystem and watershed) maintenance or restoration combined with targeted measures designed to address the needs of specific species. In including these requirements, the draft rule recognizes that there will be circumstances outside of the 

Agency’s control that may impact particular species. The Agency believes that the 

proposed approach is both more reflective of the NFMA, and more implementable 

than the 1982 rule. 

As part of the requirements included in the section on ‘‘diversity of plant and animal communities,’’ the proposed rule would require that, 

(219.9) Within Forest Service authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area, the plan must include plan components to maintain 

the diversity of plant and animal communities, as follows: 

(b) Species Conservation. The plan components must provide for the 

maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions in the plan area to: 

(3) Maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern 

within the plan area. Where it is beyond the authority of the Forest 

Service or the inherent capability of the plan area to do so, the plan 

components must provide for the maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions to contribute to the extent practicable to maintaining a 

viable population of a species within its range. When developing such 

plan components, the responsible official shall coordinate to the extent 

practicable with other Federal, State, tribal, and private land managers 

having management authority over lands where the population exists. 

(219.19) Species of conservation concern are defined in the proposed rule as 

‘‘Species other than federally listed threatened or endangered species or candidate species, for which the responsible official has determined that there is 

evidence demonstrating significant concern about its capability to persist over 

the long-term in the plan area.’’ 

The proposed rule requires that the best available scientific information be considered throughout the rule-making process, and the responsible official would have to 

document how the most relevant, reliable and accurate science was appropriately 

interpreted and applied, including in determining which species are ‘‘species of conservation concern’’ for the unit. Forest Service Directives would contain specific criteria for selecting species of conservation concern. For example, state lists of endangered, threatened, rare, endemic, or other classifications of species, such as those 

listed as threatened under State law, may be used to inform the selection of species 

of conservation concern for the unit. 

The proposed rule’s requirement for species of conservation concern would be to 

maintain or restore ecological conditions to maintain viable populations of species 

of conservation concern within the plan area, within the Agency’s authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area. Where a viable population of 

a species of conservation concern already exists within the plan area, the appropriate ecological conditions needed to maintain the long-term persistence of that 

species would continue to be provided. 

The responsible official would identify ecosystem-level plan components to provide 

the overall ecological conditions needed by a species of conservation concern: for example, restoration of mature longleaf pine habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. In 

addition, the responsible official would identify specific ecological conditions needed 

by a species: for example, providing artificial nesting cavities for red-cockaded woodpeckers while longleaf pine stands that can provide natural nesting cavities are 

being restored. 
46 

At times, factors outside the control of the Agency will prevent the Agency from 

being able to maintain a viable population of species of conservation concern within 

the plan area: for example, some of our southern forest units are too small to provide nesting habitat for the number of pairs needed to provide for a viable population of red-cockaded woodpeckers solely within the boundaries of the unit. In such 

cases, the proposed rule would require that the Agency provide plan components to 

maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area for that species, and 

by doing so to contribute to the extent practicable to a viable population across its 

range. 

Additionally, the responsible official would be required to reach out beyond NFS 

boundaries, to coordinate management with other land managers for the benefit of 

a species across its range. This requirement does not impose any management requirements or attempt to impose management direction on other land managers— 

rather, it imposes a duty on the responsible official to reach out to work with others 

and to coordinate management to the extent practicable. This requirement recognizes that species move across the landscape, and as habitat and ecological conditions change, greater cooperation among land managers will be necessary to conserve individual species. 

Question 12. What is meant by ‘‘Landscape Planning’’ in the Land Management 

Planning Rule? 

Answer. The proposed rule takes an ‘‘all-lands’’ approach to planning. What this 

means is that the responsible official would need to understand the context for management within the broader landscape, to determine the best management plan for 

a specific unit within the National Forest System. 

In the assessment phase, responsible officials would draw on information from 

many sources to understand the social, economic, and ecologic conditions and trends 

relevant to the plan area, and to identify the distinctive roles and contributions of 

the unit in providing various multiple uses or benefits to the local community, region and nation. In the planning phase, responsible officials would provide opportunities for other government agencies and land managers to participate, would review the planning and land use policies of other governmental entities where relevant to the plan area, and would coordinate with other planning efforts to the extent practicable and appropriate. In the monitoring phase, responsible officials 

would assess information and data from monitoring on both the unit and the broader landscape to determine whether any change to management within the boundaries of the plan area might be warranted. 

This approach recognizes that management of national forests and grasslands can 

both impact and be impacted by management or conditions on the lands that surround the unit, and that management can be improved by understanding that context and communicating with other land managers. 

Question 13. How do you envision the Forest Service managing at the ‘‘landscape’’ 

level, ‘‘irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries’’? And, do you believe 

that property lines are ‘‘artificial boundaries?’’ 

Answer. While the proposed rule would require an understanding of the context 

for management of NFS lands within the context of the broader landscape, the proposed rule explicitly recognizes and affirms that Forest Service management authority applies only within National Forest System boundaries. Agency managers do not 

direct or control management of lands outside of the National Forest System, nor 

will they conform management on the unit to meet non-Agency objectives or policies. 

In this way, the proposed rule recognizes the importance of respecting ownership 

and jurisdictional boundaries. 

Rather, the framework for collaboration, information sharing, and engagement 

created in the proposed rule encourages responsible officials to work with other land 

managers to address the many natural resource and land management issues that 

cross ownership and jurisdictional boundaries, for example: water, fire, wildlife, and 

invasive species. The Forest Service intends to continue to work cooperatively and 

collaboratively with adjoining landowners and communities to address these issues. 

As described in the response to Question 12, the proposed rule would require that 

responsible officials understand landscape-scale conditions and trends relevant to 

the unit and invite the participation of other land managers and members of the 

public throughout the planning process for the unit. 

a. How do you envision the Forest Service managing at the ‘‘landscape’’ level, 

‘‘irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries?’’ 

This ‘‘all lands’’ approach recognizes that management issues do not stop and 

start on a property, political, or other boundary line. The primary trends and 

threats that face our Nation’s forests such as: forest fragmentation, increased urbanization and conversion of forestlands, the effects of climate change, severe wildfire, 
47 

and the spread of invasive species cross all jurisdictional boundaries. To be successful in addressing these issues we must work with landowners and interested parties 

to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s forests. 

Forest Service land management authority applies within national forest boundaries, and the Forest Service manages lands within the National Forest System and 

its authorities. Consistent with Federal law, the Forest Service does cooperate with 

adjacent landowners, local government entities, and others on a range of land management issues, including fire suppression, invasive plant control, law enforcement, 

recreational use and access, and other shared priorities. The Forest Service, through 

its planning process and through project specific management actions, consults and 

coordinates with adjacent landowners to improve the health, sustainability, and productivity of national forests and surrounding lands. 

The Forest Service also provides technical and financial assistance to landowners 

and resource managers to help sustain the Nation’s urban and rural forests. The 

Forest Service works with our State partners to address those priority landscapelevel issues that they identified in their Statewide Forest Resource Assessments and 

Strategies through cooperation and coordination across jurisdictional boundaries. 

The primary trends and threats that face our Nation’s forests such as forest fragmentation, increased urbanization and conversion of forestlands, the effects of climate change, severe wildfire, and the spread of invasive species cross jurisdictional 

boundaries. To be successful in addressing these issues we must work with landowners and interested parties to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s forests. 

b. And, do you believe that property lines are ‘‘artificial boundaries?’’ 

The Forest Service respects all boundaries, private property rights, and the limits 

of the Forest Service’s land management authority. National Forest System employees survey, mark, manage, and protect national forest and grassland boundaries in 

order to protect the public’s investment in the national forests and grasslands. Property lines are legal landownership boundaries whose location and extent is defined 

by the legal land title ownership of the United States and the adjoining landowners. 

The Forest Service does not assert Federal management authority on other Federal, 

State, tribal, county, local, private, or corporate lands lying within the exterior perimeter boundary of the National Forest System. The Forest Service does actively 

seek opportunities to work cooperatively and collaboratively with adjoining landowners and communities to protect both public and private estates. 

Question 14. How far from FS boundaries do you think your agency’s influence 

should extend? 

Answer. The Forest Service respects all boundaries, private property rights, and 

the limits of the Forest Service’s land management authority. The primary trends 

and threats that face our Nation’s forests (such as forest fragmentation, increased 

urbanization and conversion of forestlands, the effects of climate change, severe 

wildfire, and the spread of invasive species) cross jurisdictional boundaries. To be 

successful in addressing these issues we must work with landowners and interested 

parties to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s forests. 

Forest Service State and Private Forestry, Research and Development, and International Programs provide technical assistance, grants, and other support to nonFederal forests and grasslands throughout the United States and internationally, 

consistent our authorities and direction. Together Forest Service programs improve 

forest health, sustainability, and productivity, whether in an urban forest in Chicago, on private forest land in northern New England, or in the rainforests of Africa, 

and the benefits to the American people of these investments are substantial. Likewise, the long-term health and resilience of national forests and grasslands directly 

affect surrounding non-federal lands, communities, and waters that are adjacent or 

downstream. Therefore, we implement management decisions to improve the longterm health of broader ecosystems and watersheds as well as respecting private 

property rights and the broader interests within communities, states, and regions. 

GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE

Question 15. The President had a recent speech and there was a recent press release promoting the great outdoors initiative including a comment to provide more 

‘‘access’’ to public lands. We don’t understand why the 2012 Administration budget 

proposal calls for a $ 3 million reduction in the Trails budget and $79 million to 

decommission an additional 2,185 miles of road. These two programs do not appear 

to be consistent with the Initiative. 

a. Why decommission more roads (eliminating access) and reducing the Trails 

program that has millions in deferred maintenance to existing trails? 
48 

b. What impact do you believe the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative will 

have on the management of Forests? 

c. It is clear that many of the same concepts included in the Land Management Planning Rule are also a part of the report. What role did you or others 

at Forest Service play in drafting the report? 

Answer a). ‘‘Why decommission more roads (eliminating access) and reducing the 

Trails program that has millions in deferred maintenance to existing trails?’’ 

A reduction in funding does not equate to a reduction in ‘‘access’’. There is much 

to do to ensure the public has the access they need to public lands. The discussion 

around access in the Great Outdoors Initiative is focused on land acquisition, the 

forest legacy program, and community forests and open spaces. Your question specifically addressed the type of access provided by roads and trails. The FY 2012 

President’s Budget request provides funds to continue to operate and maintain our 

network of National Forest System (NFS) trails. The regions and forests work together to set priorities for maintaining and improving trails. We understand the importance of Forest Service trails to provide access for the public to the national forests. We continue to seek opportunities with partners to leverage resources to maintain trails in order to establish a new generation of trail stewards. 

Currently the Forest Service has approximately 370,000 miles of system roads. 

Each year, we decommission less than 1% of this total. Many of the roads we decommission are user-created routes that are not part of the designated system, or are 

not needed for access to the national forests, and are causing significant environmental damage. 

Decommissioning unneeded roads and trails eliminates adverse environmental effects and actually contributes to keeping our ability to maintain other access points. 

Decommissioning is essential to operating a safe and sustainable transportation system. 

The Forest Service will continue to conduct travel analyses, including working 

with the public to determine which roads are needed for access, and which can be 

decommissioned or put in a stored condition so that they are available for future 

land management activities. 

b) ‘‘What impact do you believe the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative will have 

on the management of Forests?’’ 

Answer. The America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative supports and advances 

the ‘‘all-lands approach to conservation’’ articulated by Secretary Vilsack and Chief 

Tidwell. The AGO report recognizes that communities and partners need to work 

across boundaries to sustain the landscapes we all share, including National Forest 

System lands. The AGO report outlines some processes for bringing together landowners and stakeholders across boundaries to identify common goals and long-term 

outcomes for managing shared landscapes. These processes will assist the Forest 

Service in meeting the challenges of ecological restoration, invasive species, watershed degradation, fire and fuels. It will also enable us to accomplish more work on 

the ground by focusing our efforts at the landscape level, improving our use of stewardship contracts and establishing a consistent planning framework for the agency. 

Through landscape-scale conservation, the Forest Service will be able to meet public 

expectations for the environmental, economic, and societal benefits of forest and 

grasslands. 

c) ‘‘It is clear that many of the same concepts included in the Land Management 

Planning Rule are also a part of the report. What role did you or others at Forest 

Service play in drafting the report?’’ 

Answer. The Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, directly engaged with 

USDA executive leadership on all ten of the major components of AGO to provide 

advice and counsel on the Forest Service programs that complement the AGO goals. 

He personally attended four public listening sessions across the country to interact 

with stakeholders about their ideas especially about connecting people to the land 

via landscape scale restoration, community jobs and youth opportunities. 

Forest Service employees served on writing teams to draft the initial America’s 

Great Outdoors report and Forest Service Senior Executives served in leadership positions, in conjunction with agency leaders from across the Executive Branch, on 

these teams. The report underwent several revisions which were reviewed and commented on by members of these teams. Jim Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State & Private Forestry, served as the Forest Service’s Executive Lead for the AGO effort. 

Question 16. Access to Alaska Lands: Just recently small placer miners in Alaska 

have been informed that the Forest Service is planning to restrict motorized access 

to a host of mining claims in Alaska in the Chugach National Forest and also in 
49 

the Tongass National Forest. While some of this may be the result of the Forest 

Service moving to close the use of logging roads no longer needed for future timber 

sales based on a 2008-09 study, some of the complaints appear unconnected to budgetary concerns about the lack of funding for maintenance of traditional access 

routes. Clearly access across lands protected by the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act is protected by the 1980 law, but the complaints about access denial for mineral operations in the Chugach National Forest is rapidly increasing. 

What exactly is the reason for the attempt to close access, under exactly what scope 

of authority is the Service moving to deny access, and exactly how can small miners 

access their valid claims to minerals under national mining law without having the 

right to motorized access on routes they have used for many decades? 

Answer a). ‘‘What exactly is the reason for the attempt to close access, under exactly what scope of authority is the Service moving to deny access, and’’ 

Land Management Plans are completed under authority of the requirements of 

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Chugach National Forest 

closed a number of roads and trails to motorized access in 2002, as directed by the 

unit’s Land Management Plan, which was revised that year. Those roads and trails 

were closed based on environmental and economic concerns and were done so with 

the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Motorized access to mining operations in areas otherwise closed to motorized use on 

the Chugach National Forest is routinely allowed for mining purposes by written 

authorization under a Mining Plan of Operations, per 36 CFR 228.4. 

b.) ‘‘exactly how can small miners access their valid claims to minerals under national mining law without having the right to motorized access on routes they have 

used for many decades? 

Answer. Prior to mining activities, the miners must develop and submit a Plan 

of Operations, which will address access needs. The Plan of Operations requires 

NEPA compliance and will enable the Forest to identify reasonable access pursuant 

to the proposed mining activities. Stipulations may include restrictions seasonally 

to protect resource values, such as, road or trail improvements with due consideration of the particular and unique needs of the mining operating plan. 

Forest visitors are subject to the same motorized access restrictions, including 

those engaged in nonprofit recreational mining. However, the Forest has provided 

maps to the Gold Prospectors Association of America (GPAA) showing locations open 

to the public that are easily accessible near open roads and/or that can be accessed 

with off road vehicles. The Forest has also provided hundreds of GOLD PANNING 

brochures (2010 version) to the association. 

Question 17. Pacific Northwest Research Station Expansion: Last year the Alaska 

Delegation urged the Forest Service by letter to consider expanding the size of a 

co-located new Pacific Northwest Research Station Laboratory that is being built at 

the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau, Alaska. A larger lab facility at that 

site is cost effective since the University of Alaska has funded infrastructure costs 

and because the lab can handle the needs of other federal agencies in Southeast 

Alaska such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and 

the National Park Service, besides handling the research needs of the Forest Service’s own new Heen Latinee Experimental Forest located in Juneau. Has the Forest 

Service considered, and is it willing to expand the size of the research station’s laboratory building in Juneau, perhaps either through its FY 12 or FY 13 budget, and 

what is the status of funding and construction of the facility that is already underway in Juneau? 

Answer. The Forest Service has carefully considered the option of expanding the 

size of the Juneau Forestry Sciences Laboratory to accommodate related federal 

agencies. Our response is documented in the letter that was sent to Senator Murkowski October 21, 2010. The difficulties of expanding the current building are due 

to design challenges, environmental concerns, and the lack of authority for the Forest Service to build space for other agencies. Expanding the current building would 

also result in delays of 1 to 2 years in construction due to the need to redesign the 

foundation, mechanical systems, and amend the environmental assessment. Nevertheless, the Forest Service is open to consider co-location of other facilities on the 

Laboratory property. Co-location with a connection to the laboratory building would 

provide benefits similar to expanding the existing building. 

For the currently planned structure, Congress appropriated $4.95 million in FY 

2010 for construction of Phase 1 of the Juneau Forestry Sciences Laboratory and 

a design build contract was awarded in August 2010. The design is in the final 

stages and construction is expected to start in May 2011. The FY 2011 President’s 
50 

Budget requested $4.96 million for Phase 2 which will finish out the space for the 

Forest Service needs, if appropriated. Neither the Forest Service or the Fish and 

Wildlife Service have requested funds in FY 2012 for a building expansion. 

Question 18. Air Tankers: Would the advanced avionics that the C-130J aircraft 

carry that allow them to fly night missions address some of the concerns raised 

about the response to the Station Fire? Given the liability concerns regarding 

flights, would you ever expect the agency to authorize such night flights? 

Answer. The C-130J does provide for the ability to fly night missions, as do other 

aircraft. However, much consideration must be given to the cost/benefit of flying 

large airtankers at night and the ability to do it effectively and safely. Training and 

equipment requirements must be considered. A thorough risk assessment to address 

collision avoidance and safety of firefighters on the ground must be conducted before 

the Forest Service would consider implementing night aerial firefighting. This is a 

course of action the Forest Service is exploring. 

Question 19. Can you provide the Committee with the numbers for the remaining 

operational service life of each of the large airtankers currently in the fleet? 

Answer. Over the last few years we have averaged 19 available airtankers. Current estimates based on airtanker contractor input show that there will be a 50% 

reduction in total number of legacy (P-2V and P3 aircraft) airtankers in the next 

10 years. In order to sustain these aircraft, contractors will have to continue a strict 

maintenance and inspection program approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for the airtanker mission. 

• P-2V attrition is estimated to begin in 2017. • P-3 attrition is estimated to begin in 2029. 

Question 20. 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? 

Answer. It is safe to say that costs would increase, but it is difficult to answer 

that question with any certainty as it all depends on fire season conditions, the 

number and type of helicopter and many other variables. 

Question 21. 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? 

Answer. We believe we would be able to maintain initial attack success provided 

the ability to backfill with other air resources is achieved. A variety of factors influence our ability to contain fires. Large airtankers provide a unique combination of 

speed, range, and high load capacity which can be of critical importance during the 

initial response to wildland fires. In some cases, large airtankers provide the only 

tool available until other assets can be deployed to the site. 

Question 22. Based upon the cost figures from previous 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? 

Answer. In general, there is no direct link that can be established between initial 

attack success and overall suppression expenditures for a given year. A variety of 

factors influence our ability to contain fires within initial attack including overall 

fire activity both regionally and nationally which influences the availability of other 

suppression assets: management objectives for any particular unplanned fire; and, 

weather and fuels conditions. 

Question 23. Since the release of the NTSB report in 2004 and the Forest Service’s response to NTSB’s recommendations, it has been a known fact that the imposition of an operational service life on the large airtanker fleet would result in the 

current aircraft eventually being retired from active service. How quickly has the 

industry moved in 7 years to bring newer aircraft models into the fire fighting mission to replace the existing large fixed wing airtanker models? 

Answer. A recent request for information on next generation airtanker platforms 

received over ten responses. The agency continues to develop opportunities for the 

vendor community to transition to more modern aircraft. 

Question 24. What steps has the Forest Service taken that might encourage the 

industry to invest money in developing such an aircraft? 

Answer. The agency has transitioned from three year option contracts to five year 

fixed price contracts. This has provided greater financial stability for the vendor 

which allows them to make investments in newer aircraft. The agency sponsors a 

biannual Airtanker Forum to engage with the vendors in identifying obstacles to 
51 

modernization, business best practices, and collaborative efforts that can meet the 

agency’s needs. Agency staff members regularly meet with contractors on these 

issues. The agency has worked with contractors to perform tests to certify new 

airtanker capabilities. 

Question 25. Do the FARS regulations allow the Forest Service to enter into 10 

year contracts when it comes to acquiring air craft services for these planes? If not, 

would such authority increase the likelihood of the current industry wanting to invest the funding needed to develop alternative aircraft? 

Answer. Current FAR regulations do not permit the Agency to enter into 10-year 

contracts to acquire aircraft services. It is difficult to ascertain what the industry 

might say. 

Question 26. In addition to this report, will you provide the Committee with an 

analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the options listed at the end 

of the large fixed wing airtanker strategy? 

Answer. This response is based on the NIAC Interagency Aviation Strategy, Appendix 12: Wildland Fire Large Airtanker Strategy. The airtanker options listed in 

Appendix 12 are contractual operational models. 

OPTION/ MODEL 1: GOVERNMENT-OWNED, CONTRACTOR-OPERATED BUSINESS MODEL. 

The USDA Forest Service (FS) would own the airtankers and contract for operations and maintenance from private industry. Government ownership of these aircraft will result in control over maintenance and safety. 

Strengths 

Private industry reduces capital investment risk. 

Private industry has operations and maintenance contracting opportunities. 

Potential for reduced operating cost over existing contracted airtankers. 

Weaknesses 

Acquisition cost is very high. 

Private industry would be excluded from airtanker ownership and operations. 

OPTION 2-MILITARY-OWNED, MILITARY-OPERATED BUSINESS MODEL. 

UPDATE—Since this option was developed in 2008, the model has changed based 

on discussion with the Department of Defense. The Forest Service would own these 

aircraft and the military would operate and maintain them. The modular retardant 

tank system would be upgraded to next generation beyond MAFFS 2, which could 

increase retardant payload and effectiveness. 

This option would be an extension of the military C-130 program known as the 

Modular Airborne Firefighting System or MAFFS. Outside of the fire season, the Air 

Force/ Air National Guard would have access to the aircraft for traditional military 

missions. 

Strengths 

Coordination between the Forest Service and the Department of Defense. 

Weaknesses 

Acquisition Cost of C-130Js is very high. 

Private industry would be excluded from airtanker ownership and operations. 

Operational costs would be high based on the MAFFS program historical use and 

operations. 

War and Homeland security issues could impact availability of airtankers in this 

model. 

OPTION 3-CONTRACTOR-OWNED, CONTRACTOR-OPERATED MODEL. 

UPDATE—Since this option was developed in 2008, private industry has expressed the desire to remain in the airtanker business and modernize their fleet of 

aircraft. A recent contract request for information (RFI) for newer technology 

airtankers netted over ten proposals. Several new technology airtankers may be 

operational this year within the existing contract. The follow on contract Request 

for Proposal to the RFI above is intended to contract for newer airtankers. Private 

industry may be able to provide a majority of the future airtanker fleet. 

Strengths 

Private industry remains a viable part of the business. 

The Forest Service does not own large airtankers (low initial costs to the government). 

The MAFFS program remains a viable wildfire surge asset. 
52 

Weaknesses 

Current contracts are for five years. A longer contract period could provide reduce 

financial risk and improve return on investment. 

Question 27. Can you help the Committee understand what other programs you 

will propose to cut to pay for the C-130J aircraft that your staff seems to prefer? 

Answer. USDA and the Forest Service are still reviewing all options for air support. It is premature at this time to speculate on funding. 

Question 28. Please provide the Committee with the following information: 1) expected total cost of the replacement aircraft; 2) how many would need to be purchased each year and for how many years the purchases would continue; 3) what 

the expected annual cost of operations of each aircraft would be; and 4) compare 

those costs against the alternatives including the re-winging of the existing P-3 

Orion aircraft. 

Answer. 

1). The agency has not yet selected a replacement aircraft model. Nor has it 

been determined whether the aircraft will be contractor owned or government 

owned. 

2). It has not been determined whether the aircraft will be contractor owned 

or government owned. However, to, at a minimum, replace the current fleet 19 

aircraft would need to be purchased by either contractors or the government. 

3). Most aircraft models being evaluated cost about $5,000 per hour to operate 

and approximately $10,000 per day for fixed costs. 

4). The Forest Service has analyzed the costs of refurbishment of not only the 

P-3 but military surplus C-130H aircraft. The aviation industry estimates that 

complete refurbishment costs could be 80% the cost of a new aircraft of the 

same make and model. Even with refurbishment, these aircraft will have limited operational life 60% less than a new aircraft. Operating costs of a refurbished P-3 or C-130H could be 60% higher than a new aircraft, but would be 

less capable (i.e. speed, payload and other capability) because of their older design, engines and flight management technology. 

Question 29. 2008 Farm Bill, Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): This program has great inconsistency, coupled with a start (2009) stop (Feb 2010) schedule 

and a precipitous decline in funding since inception. How can you provide an incentive to utilize wood by-products for biopower and biofuels when there is no consistency and predictability to the program? The 2011 OMB budget request for BCAP 

was $196 million. The Administration’s 2012 budget proposal is to slash the Matching Payment Program to a capped $70 million. Why is this program being singled 

out in the Farm Bill for major budget reductions? Why hasn’t the Guidance Document been completed and issued to local FSA officials to implement the Matching 

Payment Program when the Rule was issued Oct. 27, 2010? 

Answer. The following answer is provided by the Farm Services Agency. 

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) was enacted as part of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). As enacted, the 2008 Farm 

Bill provided the open-ended appropriation of ‘‘such sums as necessary’’ for all expenditures of the program. At the time the 2008 Farm Bill was enacted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that BCAP expenditures would total $70 

million over the life of the Farm Bill. On June 29, 2010, Congress enacted the FY 

2010 Supplemental Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act (P.L. 111-212) which 

capped expenditures for BCAP at $432 million. While the FY 2011 President’s budget included estimated expenditures of $196 million for BCAP the only limitation on 

spending was the cap imposed by Congress. The FY 2012 President’s budget includes a proposal to cap the Matching Payments portion of BCAP at $70 million (the 

same amount CBO originally estimated for the entire cost of BCAP); the Establishment and Annual payment portions of BCAP would only be capped by the limitations previously imposed by Congress. Efforts to limit expenditures under the 

Matching Payments portion of BCAP have been driven, in part, by concerns expressed by Members of Congress and the wood products industry regarding resultant market distortions. All guidance documentation for the local FSA officials has 

been disseminated. Instructions on applications for Qualifying Biomass Conversion 

Facilities were issued to FSA county offices on December 15, 2010, instructions for 

Project Proposals on December 17, 2010, and instructions for requesting matching 

payments on January 7, 2011. 

Question 30. State and Private Forestry: The Forest Service has adopted an ‘‘All 

Lands’’ landscape scale approach to address the insect, disease, and wildfire risk to 

productive forest lands on the National Forests. Yet, both last year and this year’s 

2012 Budget Proposal calls for substantial reductions to: 
53 

Forest Health Mgt—Fed. Lands and Coop Lands: $-6.3 million 

State Fire Assistance: -$5.946 million 

Volunteer Fire Assistance: $-7 million 

Economic Action Program: $-5 million 

a.Please explain how you incentivize an ‘‘All Lands’’ approach with these 

State & Private Forestry cuts? 

b. Do you agree that these funds are the heart of incentivizing private land, 

restoration, and fuels reduction and partnering with state and local fire assistance? 

Answer a). Please explain how you incentivize an ‘‘All Lands’’ approach with these 

State & Private Forestry cuts? 

The US Forest Service is committed to the Secretary’s ‘‘All Lands’’ vision for forest 

conservation and recognizes the need for greater collaboration across federal, state, 

and private forestlands and the importance of maintaining working forest landscapes for rural economies. The agency will incentivize this ‘‘All Lands’’ approach 

by utilizing a mix of programs to conduct work to address insect, disease, and wildfire risk on federal lands and to expand this work on all lands while also involving 

programs beyond these budget line items. We will continue to build and strengthen 

our relationships with state and private landowners and leverage those partnerships, increasing our effectiveness by focusing funds particularly on those priorities 

identified by states and territories in their statewide resource assessments and 

strategies. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program is not reduced in the FY 2012 

proposal. 

b) ‘‘Do you agree that these funds are the heart of incentivizing private land, restoration, and fuels reduction and partnering with state and local fire assistance?’’ 

Answer. The State Forest Resource Assessments are at the ‘‘heart’’ of the all-lands 

approach and are more integral than funding levels. The US Forest Service recognizes the important work that is done in cooperation with our State and local partners through these cooperative programs. The President’s budget is formulated to 

balance the important activities of different program areas, with some program reductions necessary to exercise appropriate fiscal prudence in these difficult economic 

times. 

Question 31. National Forest System: Proposal for an IRR budget line item: Since 

the Chief told us that we needed more mechanical treatments even if it means accomplishing less acres burned, why didn’t all $86 million go to mechanical thinning? 

(An $86 million increase in mechanical thinning would raise the forest products target from 2.4 to 3.1 bbf) 

The 2010 budget levels for vegetation Budget Line Items was: 

NFTM—$336 million 

NFWF—$143 million 

NFVW—$187 million 

Total = $666 million 

The 2011 IRR proposal added: 

Priority Watershed Projects—$50 million 

CFLRA stewardship contracts—$40 million 

The 2012 IRR proposal calls for: 

An increase in Priority Watershed Projects to—$80 million 

Road decommissioning 2,185 miles at $75 million 

Shift non-WUI Hazardous Fuels (WFHF) to IRR—$86 million 

A Total increase of $200 million over the 2011 proposal 

Performance standards propose: 

2.1.a—Increase the forest products target from 2.4 bbf (2011) to 2.616 bbf 

(2012) 

2.1.b—2.7 million green tons of by-product (obtained by permit, contract, partnership, etc.) 

a. We do not understand why the Forest Service does NOT view 2.1.b as a 

target. Can you help us understand what you view as hard targets? 

b. We are not sure why the NFTM, NFWF, and NFVW BLIs should be combined; can you help us better understand why this should be done by describing 

the added accomplishments that would occur in each area that is combined in 

to the IRR account? 
54 

c. 2010 NFVW was $187 million; why not simply provide performance focus 

on the priority watershed projects ($80 million) coming from NFVW? 

d. We do not understand targeting additional road decommissioning CMRD- 

$75 million) when that funding is needed to provide engineering support to the 

vegetation (fuels reduction and mechanical thinning) projects? 

e. We believe adding the WFHF shift ($86 million) to NFTM could provide 

the ability to increase the forest products performance standard 2.1.a target to 

3.1 bbf of solid wood and performance standard 2.1.b target of 3 million green 

tons for fuelwood and biomass thereby sending the right signal to the Regions 

and Forests to step up mechanical thinning even if it means less prescribed 

burning. Can you explain why this should not be done? 

Answer. In response to your question as to why all $86 million did not go towards 

mechanical thinning, mechanical thinning is only one of several tools used by the 

agency to restore landscapes. The IRR structure as proposed in the FY 2012 President’s budget puts forth restoration opportunities as the best approach to increasing 

products and services. This integrated approach will allow the agency to accomplish 

more on the ground work that moves towards the forest health and water quality 

improvement. It emphasizes collaboration and stewardship contracting, but also recognizes the vital role traditional timber sales play in achieving restoration goals. 

For example, timber volume sold in FY 2011 is expected to increase from 2.4 million 

board feet (MMBF) to 2.6 MMBF in FY 2012. These proposed activities will also 

lead to improving watershed conditions, decommissioning of roads, and restoring or 

enhancing streams. Increasing the forest products output, alone, from 2.4 to 3.1 

MMBF would decrease project integration, create unnecessary conflict with user 

groups, and would make it more difficult to meet our forest health and water quality improvement goals. 

a) ‘‘We do not understand why the Forest Service does NOT view 2.1.b as a target. 

Can you help us understand what you view as hard targets?’’ 

Answer. 

The proposed targets identified in the President’s FY 2012 budget for Integrated 

Resource Restoration will also supply 2.7 million green tons of woody biomass from 

Federal lands. However, because of economic challenges such as limited access, distance from processing centers, and profitability, it is difficult to predict if industry 

will have the ability to acquire or use this material. 

b) ‘‘We are not sure why the NFTM, NFWF, and NFVW BLIs should be combined; 

can you help us better understand why this should be done by describing the added 

accomplishments that would occur in each area that is combined in to the IRR account?’’ 

Answer. The integrated resource restoration (IRR) program will enable the Forest 

Service to undertake larger projects and achieve more results. The IRR budget line 

item will focus on holistic results, not resource by resource. The IRR budget line 

item brings together key management resources necessary for maintaining and restoring watershed and forest health under one umbrella and directs funding to 

achieve priority work in the most important places. The proposed budget structure 

will allow us to do more work and create more jobs. These large scale projects help 

maintain existing manufacturing and workforce infrastructure, support biomass facilities to meet existing capacity, and stimulate emerging business opportunities. 

IRR moves away from the traditional approaches that are centered on localized 

small scale resource solutions, and moves the agency toward evaluating and implementing environmental restoration on a broader landscape scale. Funds will be directed to reestablish watershed, forest and grassland health, fire-adapted landscapes, and ecosystem function. Healthy forests provide for long term utilization of 

materials while improving water quality and reducing the risk of catastrophic fires. 
55 

All of this work will support wood products infrastructure and create by-products 

off of the forests. 

Combing the authorities of the existing programs gives line officers the ability and 

flexibility to meet a wider range of ecological, economic and social values than possible under the current structure. This process emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders, internal multi-disciplinary planning and efficiency efforts, and a well-crafted accountability system that will result in better designed restoration projects, 

more community support, fewer appeals, and more work accomplished on the 

ground. 

Performance will be addressed through a combination of outcome measures that 

reflect expected accomplishments toward IRR’s restoration and maintenance goals 

at the forest and regional levels over time, as well as targets tracking current outputs and reporting items, such as board feet, from the former budget line items. 

This approach will provide consistency and transparency about the use of appropriated funds under the IRR budget structure. 

Established performance measures such as timber volume, road mileages, acres 

treated for hazardous fuels, and other outputs will continue to be used. As a part 

of the FY 2012 proposal for Integrated Resource Restoration we will assign specific 

targets to each region. Line officers are held accountable, through performance reviews, for meeting assigned targets. 

c) ‘‘2010 NFVW was $187 million; why not simply provide performance focus on 

the priority watershed projects ($80 million) coming from NFVW?’’ 

Answer. 

A core tenet of the IRR framework is that we need to adapt our work in new 

ways. More of the same old approaches, and line items will not get us to more work 

accomplished. The FY 2012 President’s Budget request includes a number of budget 

structure changes designed to increase efficiency in program administration, delivery, and to reduce redundancy while continuing to support this Administration’s 

highest priorities. The FY 2012 President’s Budget request will consolidate budget 

line items (BLI) including Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, Timber 

Management, Legacy Roads, National Forest System Vegetation and Watersheds, 

the non-Wildland Urban Interface part of Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels and road 

decommissioning activities. 

Consolidation of these activities will facilitate a holistic approach to landscape 

management. Singling out any one activity will have the effect of minimizing product outputs. A fully integrated approach is what is needed. Collectively four components make up the IRR framework: 1) Restoration and management of ecosystems; 

2) Priority Watershed and Job Stabilization; 3) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program; and 4) Legacy Roads and Trails. 

Consolidating the BLIs into the IRR structure improves upon traditional approaches centered on local, individual small scale resource solutions and will move 

the Forest Service toward evaluating and implementing environmental needs on a 

broad landscape scale, and concentrating activities in priority watersheds. Funds 

will be directed to reestablish watershed, forest and grassland health, fire-adapted 

landscapes, and ecosystem function. 

d) ‘‘We do not understand targeting additional road decommissioning CMRD-$75 

million) when that funding is needed to provide engineering support to the vegetation (fuels reduction and mechanical thinning) projects?’’ 

Answer. This budget supports both; the FY2012 President’s Budget includes approximately $158 million for Road Construction and Maintenance, including $32 

million for engineering support to vegetation projects. This includes support for the 

construction of new roads, as well as maintenance and reconstruction of existing 

roads. 

The President’s Budget is proposing to move the Legacy Roads and Trails program ($50,000,000) to the new Integrated Resource Restoration program. The focus 

of the Legacy Roads funding will remain the same as it was in previous years: urgently needed road and trail decommissioning, and repair, maintenance, and associated activities. This includes the restoration of aquatic organism passage and the 

mitigation of other environmental impacts of roads. In addition, the Forest Service 

proposes to move $25 million for priority road decommissioning from the Roads Construction and Maintenance program to the Integrated Resource Restoration program. Together, these funds will constitute the Legacy Roads and Trails component 

of the Integrated Resource Restoration program. 

e) ‘‘We believe adding the WFHF shift ($86 million) to NFTM could provide the 

ability to increase the forest products performance standard 2.1.a target to 3.1 bbf 
56 

of solid wood and performance standard 2.1.b target of 3 million green tons for 

fuelwood and biomass thereby sending the right signal to the Regions and Forests 

to step up mechanical thinning even if it means less prescribed burning. Can you 

explain why this should not be done?’’ 

Answer. The FY 2012 budget proposes a shift of WFHF to a proposed fund NFRR 

(Integrated Resource Restoration). IRR does emphasize mechanical thinning while 

addressing larger landscape goals. For example, timber volume harvested is expected to increase from 2.4 million board feet (MMBF) in FY 2011 to 2.6 MMBF 

in FY 2012. However, prescribed burning is also a critical component for meeting 

many forests’ restoration objectives. 

Further, a significant board foot shift such as suggested would create unneeded 

conflict, appeals, and litigation. There will be time to increase IRR outputs and this 

program will eventually reach higher levels, but not in the first year. Therefore, the 

proposed IRR structure balances commercial output opportunities with restoration 

needs. This integrated approach will allow the Forest Service to accomplish more 

on the ground work that implements our forest health and water quality improvement goals. These proposed activities will also lead to improving watershed conditions, decommissioning of roads, and restoring or enhancing streams. 

Question 32. Capital Improvement and Maintenance: The Administration’s 

FY2011 Budget proposes a $79 million reduction in the roads program which eliminates the engineering support needed to accomplish the vegetation projects. Why is 

it shown again in 2012? 

Answer. The FY 2012 President’s Budget request shifts funding for road and trail 

decommissioning, as well as road and trail repair and maintenance for the mitigation of environmental impacts of roads and trails associated with restoration work 

to the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line. Shifting these activities to IRR 

will allow the Forest Service to accomplish vegetation projects more efficiently. The 

FY 2012 President’s Budget request includes $158 million for Road Construction 

and Maintenance in the following activities: $124 million for Operation and Maintenance; $25 million for Reconstruction of Existing Roads; and nearly $9 million for 

New Road Construction in Alaska. These amounts include an estimated $32 million 

for engineering support to vegetation projects. This includes support for the construction of new roads, as well as maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads 

for vegetation projects. 

Question 33. Wildland Fire Management: We can understand why the Agency 

wants an increase in Most Efficient Level (MEL) of fire preparedness. But we don’t 

understand why the Administration doesn’t require the fire crews to be out doing 

hazardous fuels work and accomplishing targets. Can you help us understand why 

under-utilized fire crews couldn’t or shouldn’t be doing this type of work when not 

on fires? 

Answer. The agency takes fire readiness seriously and has requested the funds 

to maintain an efficient level of preparedness. Fire crews can, and often are assigned, project work that directly accomplishes fuels reduction or other land management work. We want to take advantage of this dual role where we can so please 

do let us know where we can optimize specific fire crews on the ground. The agency 

manages the Wildland Fire Management programs collaboratively and coordinates 

the deployment of firefighting resources to meet fire management objectives. Over 

the past few years, the Forest Service has taken steps to improve performance and 

reduce costs, such as to align field units to better capitalize on shared resources, 

management oversight, and support functions. 

Question 34. We do not believe there should be any increase in Preparedness, 

rather Preparedness crews should be held accountable for accomplishing fuels reduction work (WFHF) when they are on standby waiting for the fire bell. 

Answer. The FY 2012 budget does move funds from suppression to preparedness. 

However, the cost burden for the restructured resources is also shifted. There is no 

effective increase in Preparedness. In past years aviation and cost pools related to 

preparedness were paid out of the suppression account in order to maintain initial 

attack suppression capability. Unfortunately, this procedure artificially inflated the 

10-year average cost of fire suppression. Therefore, the Forest Service has now properly re-aligned the budget to ensure that preparedness costs are fully identified separate from suppression. This will affect future computations of the 10-year average. 

The agency takes fire readiness seriously and has requested the funds to maintain 

an efficient level of preparedness. Fire crews can, and often are assigned, project 

work that directly accomplishes fuels reduction or other land management work. We 

want to take advantage of this dual role where we can so please do let us know 

where we can optimize specific fire crews on the ground. The agency manages the 

Wildland Fire Management programs collaboratively and coordinates the deploy-
57 

ment of firefighting resources to meet fire management objectives. Over the past few 

years, the Forest Service has taken steps to improve performance and reduce costs, 

such as to align field units to better capitalize on shared resources, management 

oversight, and support functions. 

Question 35. As was mentioned under S&PF above, with an ‘‘All Lands’’ landscape level approach to management, why is there $ 41 million of cuts proposed to NFP 

Forest Health, State Fire Assistance, and Volunteer Fire Assistance? 

Answer. The agency is committed to the Secretary’s ‘‘All Lands’’ vision for forest 

conservation and recognizes the need for greater collaboration across federal, state 

and private forestlands and the importance of maintaining working forest landscapes for rural economies. The agency will incentivize this ‘‘All Lands’’ approach 

by utilizing a mix of programs to conduct work to address insect, disease, and wildfire risk on federal lands and to expand this work on all lands while also involving 

programs beyond these budget line items. However, the President’s budget is formulated to balance the important activities of different program areas, and some program reductions are necessary to exercise appropriate fiscal prudence in these difficult economic times. Regarding the proposed reduction in Wildland Fire Management State Fire Assistance program, the President’s Budget proposal of 

$45,564,000, while down from the FY 2010 enacted level, is generally consistent 

with prior appropriated funding levels for this account. 

RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS AREAS

Question 36. Everyone is aware of the order Secretary Salazar released regarding 

so-called ‘‘Wild Lands,’’ which are nothing more than de facto Wilderness Areas designated on BLM lands without Congressional approval. Chief Tidwell had a role in 

changing the way Recommended Wilderness Areas on Forest Lands are managed 

in Region 1 before he became Chief. Would you explain how Region 1 dealt with 

Recommended Wilderness Areas, and tell us about the plans the Forest Service 

Headquarters has, if any, to address Recommended Wilderness Areas? 

Answer. When Chief Tidwell was Regional Forester in Region 1, he implemented 

the National Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual—FSM1923.03) which 

states: ‘‘Any inventoried roadless area recommended for wilderness or designated 

wilderness study is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the wilderness potential of an area. Activities currently permitted may continue, pending designation, if the activities do not compromise wilderness values of the area.’’ 

Then-Regional Forester Tidwell advised National Forest System units to carefully 

consider the characteristics of these, recommended or designated areas while completing their land management plans. When a forest system unit issued a draft recommendation for an area, the unit’s management designation of appropriate uses 

was to reflect these findings. The draft recommendation for uses was then to be put 

forth by the forest unit, during the public involvement process required for land 

management planning, prior to the Forest Service finalizing decisions on the plan. 

The Forest Service has received letters from citizen organizations and some members of Congress expressing concern about the management of recommended wilderness areas. The letters have raised the issue of whether recreation uses, such as 

all terrain vehicles and mountain bikes, that would be prohibited if an area is designated as wilderness may be allowed to continue pending Congressional action on 

the recommendation. These interim recreation activities may ultimately influence 

whether or not an area is available for wilderness designation by Congress. 

In order to thoroughly consider these concerns, we have assigned a review team 

to analyze the implementation of the current Forest Service policy. This team expects to complete its work by the summer of 2011. Upon completion of the review, 

the Forest Service will contact interested parties, including Members of Congress, 

with the results and options for area management. The Forest Service will analyze 

any proposed change in policy through a public process. 

RECREATION

Question 37. The Notice of Intent to develop a Land Management Rule mostly ignored recreation. The Draft Rule focuses much more on recreation. Why was recreation left out of the NOI, and what emphasis should recreation be given by the Forest Service in the final Land Management Planning Rule and by Forest personnel? 

Answer. We intended for recreation management to be incorporated in principle 

five of the notice of intent (NOI), ‘‘...plans could foster sustainable NFS lands and 

their contribution to vibrant rural economies.’’ We realize now that a more explicit 

recognition of recreation would have been better. 

The proposed rule does recognize the importance of recreation to the American 

people and require the unique needs of the recreation resource to be addressed 
58 

throughout the process of assessment; plan development, revision or amendment; 

and monitoring. This process will allow each NFS unit to identify unique recreational roles, create plans that provide sustainable recreational opportunities and 

uses, and require monitoring of progress toward meeting recreational objectives. 

The proposed rule recognizes the importance of sustainable recreation as a multiple use. Sustainable recreation is defined in the proposed rule as the set of recreational opportunities, uses and access that, individually and combined, are ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable, allowing the responsible official to 

offer recreation opportunities now and into the future. Recreational opportunities 

can include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, 

water, and air. 

The proposed rule requires plan components designed to provide for sustainable 

recreation opportunities and uses, which will contribute to the social and economic 

health of communities. The proposed rule recognizes the importance of recreation 

as a multiple use, and would integrate recreation concerns and provide for the 

unique needs of the recreation resource throughout the planning process, including 

in the assessment and monitoring phases. The proposed rule requires that plan components provide for sustainable recreation. It also requires the responsible official 

to take sustainable recreation opportunities and uses into account when developing 

plan components to contribute to social and economic sustainability. 

We look forward to reviewing input from the public on the proposed rule in order 

to develop our final rule. 

Question 38. As you look to the future use of our National Forests in the next 

100 years, what is your vision on how these lands should be used by the American 

people? 

Answer. The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to ‘‘sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations’’. Over the next 100 years climate change will impact 

forests and grasslands, diminishing the benefits they provide. Climate change affects individual species and the stressors and disturbances that shape ecological 

processes and functions. Climate change is not the only driver of the changes we 

have been seeing across America’s landscapes. Urban growth, markets for wood, a 

legacy of fire exclusion, loss of open space, fire and fuels, invasive species, the 

spread of forest pests and disease, and other factors are also driving change. We 

will face a whole host of challenges over the next 100 years. 

Our commitment to land stewardship and public service is the framework within 

which the national forests and grasslands are managed. The Forest Service’s Strategic Plan specifies seven agency goals: 1. Restore, sustain, and enhance the Nation’s forests and grasslands; 2. Provide and sustain benefits to the American people; 3. Conserve open space; 4. Sustain and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities; 5. Maintain basic management capabilities of the Forest Service; 6. Engage 

urban America with Forest Service programs; and 7. Provide science-based applications and tools for sustainable natural resources management. Recently the Forest 

Service proposed a new planning rule that would provide a framework to guide the 

collaborative and science-based development, amendment and revision of land management plans that promote healthy, resilient, diverse and productive national forests and grasslands. 

In 2010 the President introduced America’s Great Outdoors (AGO), which will 

help to shape the future of how the Nation’s forests will be used by the American 

people. The AGO action plan was created with input from some 20,000 Americans, 

through 56 listening sessions held across the United States, and another 150,000 

comments received electronically. The American people care deeply about their outdoor heritage and are willing to take an active role in protecting it now and for future generations. Our role is to advocate a conservation ethic, promoting health, diversity, and productivity of forests and grasslands while listening to and responding 

to the diverse needs of the American people. 

Question 39. How do you view motorized recreation, and how do you see the implementation of the Travel Management Rule progressing? 

Answer. Motorized recreation is a long standing and appropriate use of National 

Forest System lands when properly managed and in the right places. Implementation of the motor vehicle use maps is progressing steadily. As of the end of FY 2010, 

approximately 68 percent of Forest Service administered units had implemented 

Subpart B of the travel management rule and published a motor vehicle use map 

(MVUM). Subpart B, Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, 

requires each administrative unit to designate those NFS roads, NFS trails, and 

areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use and identify those designations on MVUM. The agency anticipates that nearly all MVUMs will be completed 
59 

by December of 2011. The remaining units will implement Subpart B on a schedule 

determined by available resources and competing priorities. 

The Forest Service prepared a Route and Area Designation Implementation Guide 

in May 2010. The purpose of the guide is to assist Forest Service employees with 

implementing route and area designations made under the travel management rule, 

as well as managing off-highway vehicle use at the field level. 

Question 40. Do you intend to direct Forests to dedicate the necessary funds to 

adequately and fairly implement the Travel Management Rule? 

Answer. The majority of Forest Service administrative units (68%) have already 

completed route and area designations under the travel management rule and produced a motor vehicle use map. The Forest Service is committed to funding implementation of the travel management rule in a targeted, efficient manner. 

FIRE AVIATION PROPOSAL

Question 41a. Does the Forest Service wish to acquire new C-130J aircraft for firefighting? 

Answer. The agency has not yet selected a replacement aircraft model. 

Question 41b. How much will each plane cost? 

Answer. The agency has not selected a replacement aircraft model nor has it determined whether the aircraft will be contractor owned or government owned. 

Question 41c. How many planes will you need and how soon? 

Answer. To replace the current fleet 19 aircraft would need to be purchased by 

either contractors or the government. 

Question 41d. And in declining budget what programs are you willing to cut to 

free up funding to cover the cost of acquisition? 

Answer. Funding decisions will be made when a specific airtanker proposal and 

type of ownership is settled upon. 

Question 41e. Finally, please explain why your fire and aviation experts have not 

been willing to look at other alternatives, such as putting new wings on the existing 

Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft which I am told can be accomplished at about 1/5th the 

cost of a new C-130J? 

Answer. The Forest Service has evaluated other alternatives including re-winging 

a P-3. The Forest Service acquired 3 military excess P-3Bs in 2006. The intent was 

to inspect 1 aircraft and repair it in accordance with US Navy structural inspection 

requirements which are much less stringent than those needed for the airtanker 

mission. It became apparent that the aircraft would require much more repair than 

originally estimated to meet airworthiness requirement for the airtanker mission. 

The Forest Service has since abandoned this effort due to the extreme costs and has 

transferred 1 of the 3 aircraft to another government agency. The aviation industry 

estimates that complete refurbishment costs could be 80% the cost of a new aircraft 

of the same make and model. Even with refurbishment, these aircraft will have limited operational life 60% less than a new aircraft. Operating costs of a refurbished 

P-3 or C-130H could be 60% higher than a new aircraft, but would be less capable 

(i.e. speed, payload and other capability) because of their older design, engines and 

flight management technology. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1a. Chief Tidwell, I’ve heard concerns about the consolidation of line 

items in the National Forest System budget into the proposed Integrated Resource 

Restoration account. This new account will constitute more than half of the discretionary funding for the National Forest System and will cover functions previously 

funded through 6 separate budget line items. How will Forests with relatively successful timber sale programs plan for their land management programs under the 

Integrated Resource Restoration budget? 

Answer a). ‘‘How will Forests with relatively successful timber sale programs plan 

for their land management programs under the Integrated Resource Restoration 

budget? 

Timber targets will continue under the IRR proposal and will provide the planning framework. Integrated resource restoration (IRR) will facilitate the Forest 

Service to increase accomplishments on the ground to support identified forest 

health and water quality improvement goals. The new IRR structure emphasizes 

collaboration and stewardship contracting, but also recognizes the vital role traditional timber sales play in achieving restoration goals. Combining the authorities 

of the existing programs will allow line officers the ability to meet a wider range 

of ecological, economic and social values than has been possible under the restricted 

budget structure of the past. The IRR structure will enable larger projects and thus 
60 

more goods and services to be produced. It will encourage multi-faceted restoration 

work with a lower likelihood of appeals and litigation because of the collaborative 

emphasis used to define projects and the landscape-level objectives of the projects 

and activities. In this way IRR structure works in concert with the new Proposed 

Planning Rule, which is similarly anticipated to promote integration of various forest restoration and watershed protection activities contributing to the resilience of 

ecosystems and landscapes. 

b) ‘‘What assurance do we have that Forests with successful timber sale programs 

will continue to meet their timber targets under the IRR program?’’ 

Answer. Timber targets will continue to be applied. Performance will be addressed 

through a combination of outcome measures that reflect expected accomplishments 

toward IRR’s restoration and maintenance goals at the forest and regional levels 

over time, as well as targets tracking current outputs and reporting items, such as 

board feet, from the former budget line items. This approach will provide consistency and transparency about the use of appropriated funds under the IRR budget 

structure. 

Established performance measures such as timber volume, miles of roads decommissioned, acres treated for hazardous fuels, and other outputs will continue to be 

used. As a part of the FY 2012 proposal for Integrated Resource Restoration we will 

assign specific targets to each region. Line officers are held accountable, through 

performance reviews, for meeting assigned targets. 

Question 2. As Congress evaluates our renewable energy policies, it’s important 

to me to ensure that we incentivize the sustainable use of renewable biomass from 

both public and private forests. 

Answer a). ‘‘If Congress were to adopt a renewable electricity standard using the 

definition of renewable biomass contained in the 2007 EISA, what would the impact 

be on communities near the National Forests?’’ 

It is difficult to accurately predict what the impacts would be to communities near 

national forests and grasslands if Congress adopted a renewable electricity standard. Assuming that a renewable electricity standard would include wood to energy, 

such a standard would improve markets, reduce management costs, and put people 

to work. In general, communities assessing the feasibility of biomass utilization 

have relied on supply studies to determine quantities and availability of biomass 

materials. Those data have been used by communities to determine if operations can 

be sustained. This information is not available for all communities near national forests and grasslands, and is essential to accurately determine the impacts and feasibility. 

The EISA places limitations on eligible biomass materials. Under the EISA, biomass generated through forest management activities such as slash and pre-commercial thinning residue, is eligible as a renewable fuel only if removed from nonfederal forestlands. Materials from federal lands do not qualify. 

b) ‘‘What about the ability of states like Michigan with substantial acreage of naturally regenerating forests to meet an RES using biomass?’’ 

Answer. Locations with substantial acreage of natural regeneration could possibly 

assist in meeting a Renewable Electricity Standard. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

COUNTY PAYMENTS

Question 1. In the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the county payments 

program, there is no funding for the county payments program in the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) budget. Under the existing county payments program, the 

BLM makes payments to Oregon’s O&C counties. That obligation arises from the 

O&C lands that BLM administers and for which a timber receipt sharing obligation 

exists under the law that established these lands. My staff has been told that the 

BLM’s role in providing county payments to the O&C counties has been handed over 

to the Forest Service, who also appears to be solely funding the program from its 

discretionary budget. I still have not received details from the Administration on 

how much funding in the proposed 5 year reauthorization will be used for the BLM 

payments and how such a determination will be made. Can you provide me the 

amounts, under the Administration’s proposal, of the county payments program 

funding that will be provided to cover payments to the O&C counties for each of 

the five years of the proposal, how the allocation of funding for Forest Service and 
61 

BLM lands will be made and how the Forest Service intends to make payments to 

cover BLM obligations? 

Answer. The Administration’s proposal for reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools 

Act would not transfer the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) current administration of the O&C lands, and would not transfer the responsibility for BLM’s payments to counties. The proposal is shown in the budget under the Forest Service 

merely for the simplicity of showing it in one place. Inter-agency transfers would 

be made to ensure that both the Forest Service and the BLM continue covering their 

respective share of the payments. We understand the concern about this proposal 

being funded from the agencies’ discretionary budgets. The Administration is open 

to working with Congress to fund either through discretionary or mandatory appropriations. 

Determination of the Forest Service and BLM payments would be made using the 

same formula as in the current Act. This formula calculates a county’s adjusted 

share and applies it to the full funding amount. The proposal identifies separate full 

funding amounts for each of the proposal’s three purposes: payments for schools and 

roads; economic investment and forest restoration; and, wildfire assistance. 

The proposed funding for each purpose by each agency is shown in the following 

table: 

COUNTY PAYMENTS RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Question 2. I also understand that the Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) appointments under this program have still not been completed, as the program heads 

into the final year of the current reauthorization. This has been a very successful 

part of this program and gets projects and funding out on the ground. Without completed RACs, these projects and use of these funds is getting held up. What is holding up these appointments and can I get your assurance that you will move these 

out soon? 

Answer. We are pleased to report that as of March 11, 2011 the Secretary of Agriculture has appointed members to all of the Secure Rural Schools Act resource advisory committees chartered under the 2008 re-authorization. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Question 3. As I indicated in the hearing, I am troubled that hazardous fuels 

funding in the overall budget has been cut about $10 million when there remains 

a strong need to increase the amount of this work getting done. As you mentioned 

in the hearing yesterday, the Agency was successful in meeting its timber targets 

last year. However, in terms of acres treated, the agency has fallen short of meeting 

its goals. For example, in the Forest Service FY2012 budget justification on page 

3-9, the agency only treated 59% of the acres in its target for improving the condition class and reducing the risk to communities. 

To me this indicates that the agency is not meeting its own acreage targets even 

when it had more money. And many would say these acreage targets themselves 

are far below what actually needs to get treated. So it seems we’re taking a step 

in the wrong direction. 

I want to be clear that I support some of the hazardous fuels work that will occur 

in projects under Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration and I appreciate that 

the Integrated Resource Restoration may help find some efficiencies. 

However, when health of the federal forests in Oregon and elsewhere continues 

to decline and when the agency itself acknowledges the need to scale up the acres 

treated and the projects implemented but notes the lack of sufficient funding, it 
62 

seems that cutting the hazardous fuels funding is simply the wrong place to make 

cuts. Chief Tidwell, can you explain to me how the agency is going to be able to 

make progress in treating the necessary acres, getting more projects completed and 

restoring forest health under this budget proposal? 

Answer. There is a strong need to continue fuels reduction work on National Forest System lands. There is also recognition of the importance of integrating fire as 

a critical natural process in land and resource management plans and activities, reintroducing fire into ecosystems, managing wildfire across landownership boundaries, and applying the best available science. The FY 2012 budget proposes a reduction in hazardous fuels but this is mainly due to a shift of funds into the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) account. Funding in IRR will still be available 

to accomplish fuels reduction work, and we intend to treat a similar number of acres 

as occurred in the past. Those funds in the hazardous fuels account will be focused 

on the highest priority acres in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) to reduce risk 

to communities and help keep firefighters safe. 

In FY 2010, the Forest Service treated over 1.9 million of WUI high priority acres 

and almost 1.3 million of other priority acres, well exceeding the agency target for 

fuels treatment. However, the figure reported on acres treated to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, which you cited from page 3-9, is accounting for when acres change 

condition class, i.e. when all restoration work has been accomplished such that the 

acres treated are within the natural range of variability of vegetation characteristics: fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. To change condition class often takes multiple treatments over a number 

of years. For example, a site may need to be thinned, the slash piled, and then 

burned to change the condition class. This may take three field seasons for all the 

work to be completed. Further, acreage alone is not a great measure of accomplishment. The priority of these acres is perhaps more important. More often than not 

the priority acres are more expensive (near community infrastructure) and therefore 

we see smaller acreage figures in many areas as well. 

PRIORITY WATERSHEDS AND JOBS STABILIZATION

Question 4. One of the new proposals the Administration made last year and 

again this year is the Priority Watersheds and Jobs Stabilization Initiative. This 

proposal appears to have shifted a bit in this year’s proposal to focus specifically 

on implementing action plans under the Watershed Condition Framework. Can you 

tell us more about what these action plans are, what forests already have these and 

what steps are being taken for other forests to develop them, and finally, what type 

of work you envision will be performed under this program? 

Answer. While many national forests implement a variety of activities to improve 

watersheds, the process for developing watershed action plans is new. The first Watershed Restoration Action Plans (action plans) will be completed by the end of FY 

2011. 

Action plans will identify specific projects required to maintain or improve the watershed condition class of priority watersheds. These documents identify specific 

problems affecting watershed conditions, determine appropriate projects to address 

these problems, and propose an implementation schedule with project sequencing 

and potential partners. The action plans will help us to link project priorities to National goals and strategies. The action plans will also facilitate implementation and 

tracking of watershed condition improvements in a consistent manner. 

The Forest Service has classified approximately all 15,000 watersheds, with substantial Forest Service management responsibility, at the sixth-level Hydrologic 

Unit Code. Classification of watersheds is the first step in the Watershed Condition 

Framework and is the necessary precursor to prioritizing watersheds. In the next 

step, units will identify their priority watersheds, and action plans will be created 

for priority watersheds for improvements. By the end of fiscal year 2011, the identification of priority watersheds and the development of the action plans designed to 

move priority watersheds to an improved condition class will be completed for an 

estimated 200-300 high priority watersheds throughout the National Forest System. 

Accomplishments will vary depending in part upon; geography, partner contributions, the complexity of land management issues, and landownership patterns. 

In order for a priority watershed to be considered for the Priority Watershed funding, the local unit must have used the Watershed Condition Framework to identify 

their candidate priority watersheds and identified the essential suite of restoration 

projects for each of these watersheds. This eligibility requirement will be an incentive for the local units to complete the prioritization/essential project process. 

Each action plan will contain a list of essential projects that are an integrated 

suite of management activities focused on maintaining and restoring watershed 
63 

health and thereby improving watershed condition class. The options selected may 

draw from the entire suite of actions included in the restoration toolbox but are actions focused on addressing the limiting factors associated with one or more of the 

12 watershed condition indicators that are not in properly functioning condition. Potential activities include: treating sediment sources from old trails, restoring wet 

meadow habitat to moderate stream flows, replacing undersized culverts to restore 

fish passage and reduce habitat fragmentation, reestablishing native fish to historic 

habitat, reestablishing native vegetation to protect stream banks, decommissioning 

roads, ripping old log landings and trails to reduce soil compaction, conducting prescribed burns to reduce fuel loading, reestablishing forest vegetation on burned 

areas, improving grazing practices to maintain grassland ecosystems, containing 

and treating invasive weeds, and treating insect and disease outbreaks in forested 

stands. 

CUTS TO LANDOWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT

Question 5. I noticed the Landownership Management account is proposed for a 

10% cut. I know cuts are needed and this certainly looks like a very obscure place 

to easily make cuts. However, it is from this account that the day to day work of 

surveying—for example for new wilderness boundaries—or completing land exchanges takes place. The agency is incredibly backlogged on much of this work. 

Using the Mt. Hood Wilderness legislation as an example—2 years after the bill became law the land exchanges implemented under that legislation are still slowly 

working their way through the process. A draft EIS isn’t even expected until the 

coming fall, with many more steps to follow. I’m told it will be many years before 

the agency completes the surveys of the new wilderness boundaries as well. It seems 

that these kinds of cuts are hurting the basic work the agency needs to get accomplished to manage its resources. How do you think the agency can keep up, much 

less catch up, on this backlog of work if the resources funding this work continue 

to be cut? 

Answer. Tough budget times call for difficult budget choices. 

Current surveying and proper line marking activities address the most critical 

and highest priority needs to support litigation, to support trespass and encroachment resolutions, to aid in resolving title claims or critical survey support for acquisitions and mapping, and for describing specially designated area boundaries such 

as Wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers. We will continue to target available funding toward similar high-priority management needs. 

Æ