U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

25–980 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–39 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 15, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

BRYAN PETIT, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESS 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ....... 10 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Article by Brittany Patterson dated June 7, 2017 entitled ‘‘Zinke, Perdue 

embrace status quo on fire policy’’ ............................................................... 4 

Chart regarding Budget Decreases ................................................................. 7 

Chart regarding Budget Cuts for Volunteer Fire Departments ................... 9 

Map issued June 1, 2017 and produced by Predictive Services, National 

Interagency Fire Center entitled ‘‘Significant Wildland Fire Potential 

Outlook—August & September 2017’’ ......................................................... 22 

Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine: 

Map issued June 1, 2017 and produced by Predictive Services, National 

Interagency Fire Center entitled ‘‘Significant Wildland Fire Potential 

Outlook—August & September 2017’’ ......................................................... 29 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Tidwell, Tom: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 10 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 12 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 45 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. 

The Committee will come to order. We are still waiting on the 

arrival of Senator Cantwell, but I understand that she will be here 

imminently. Recognizing that we have several votes that are set to 

commence around 11 o’clock, I would like to try to get things underway expeditiously here. 

We are here this morning for the first of three budget hearings 

that we will conduct between now and next Tuesday. The topic this 

morning is the President’s request for the U.S. Forest Service for 

Fiscal Year 2018. As we prepare to review that proposal, we welcome back the head of the Forest Service, Chief Tom Tidwell, to 

our Committee. 

It’s good to have you back. We appreciate you being here. For you 

and I, this is a little bit of de ́ja` vu all over again because we did 

this just last Wednesday in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. The venue has changed a little bit. My views are the 

same so it is probably going to be—you are thinking it is going to 

be—an easy one, but know that I have saved all my hard questions 

for you for this morning. I do appreciate the opportunity to continue with that line of questioning. The President’s request for the Forest Service for FY’18 is $4.7 billion. That is $880 million less than last year when we factor in 

the $342 million in emergency funding that Congress provided 

above the 10-year average in the event of a severe fire season. 

In Alaska, our fire season is already well underway, so this funding is, once again, a priority for me. While we are hoping for a better year compared to recent years, we have already had almost 200 

fires in the state now in this season. Those fires have burned more 

than 112,000 acres. We have about 50 fires that are active as we 

speak. 
2 

The Forest Service request for its Wildland Fire Management Program is roughly $2.5 billion. Fire suppression is funded at the 

full 10-year average of just over $1 billion. While the budget does 

not propose a wildfire cap adjustment or any type of fix to end fire 

borrowing, I was pleased to see the Administration note that it is 

prepared to work with Congress to find a fiscally responsible solution. Chief, I hope you meant that because I certainly plan on taking you up on that offer and working with you to find that solution. 

I also appreciate the Forest Service’s acknowledgement that its 

primary responsibility is to manage our national forests. When 

making tough funding decisions, we need to make certain that we 

are meeting our basic forest health needs before funding other programs. I think it is a good sign that the agency’s top priority in this 

request is to invest in national forest management. 

Of course, that is not the only way this budget differs from the 

previous Administration’s proposal for the Forest Service. Rather 

than a wish list of spending paid for with budget gimmicks, this 

new request proposes real cuts to a number of programs. And I 

mentioned some of them in our Appropriations hearing last week. 

Some of those cuts are worth considering, but some are concerning, 

like the proposed cuts to the recreation programs. Some could impact critical forest management activities like firefighting and hazardous fuels reduction, and some appear to contradict other proposals in the budget like the steep cut to capital improvement and 

maintenance which will make the timber target difficult, if not impossible, to reach. 

We will look at all of those proposals carefully, but from the outset I do have a request. If you are going to worry about Forest 

Service budget cuts, you should also worry about the Forest Service 

management failures because those can have an even greater impact on the budgets and the economies of forested communities. 

The Forest Service failing to do its job, whether making timber 

available or something else, has significant impacts on real people 

and we cannot forget that. All of us know that those communities 

would much rather be able to shape their own futures instead of 

being forced to depend on unpredictable federal funding. 

Ultimately, what I want is for the Forest Service to do more to 

make our forests the economic engines that they should be—not 

just in Alaska, but in the lower 48 as well. While Alaska paints a 

very stark picture of the need for robust and responsible uses of 

our national forests, the need is nationwide. 

Recreation, tourism, and forest products can and must co-exist 

for us to have thriving and healthy communities and forests. This 

is not only a matter of federal funding but also reasonable access 

to resources and a real understanding of local communities’ needs 

and opportunities. We have not had enough of that in recent years, 

but I am confident this Administration will head us in a good direction. 

With that, given that Senator Cantwell has not yet joined the 

Committee, Chief, I would invite you to begin your comments and 

we will have an opportunity to hear from the Ranking Member 

when she arrives. So if you would like to proceed this morning— 

oops, would you withhold this morning? 

[Laughter.] 
3 

Senator Cantwell, I apologize, we were trying to expedite things 

so that we can move to our votes. I have just concluded my opening 

statement, but would invite you to provide the same. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. Chief Tidwell, thank you for being here today. 

Obviously, the health and the vitality of American forests are 

particularly interesting to people in our state after we suffered two 

of the worst fires a few years ago. I do not see how the President’s 

budget even begins to enable the Forest Service to fulfill its motto 

of caring for the land and serving the people. This budget would 

not improve the health of our land nor enable you, as Chief, to provide the greatest benefit to our citizens. 

I know that I read an article just yesterday that said, ‘‘Zinke, 

Perdue,’’ meaning our two Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, 

‘‘embrace status quo on fire policy.’’ 

[The information referred to follows:] 
4 

FORESTS 

Zinke, Perdue embrace status quo on fire policy 

Brittany Patterson, E&E News reporter 

Published. Wednesday. June 7, 2017 

Leaders of the Interior and Agriculture departments have called for continued cooperation in the 

fight against wildfires, parroting language and policies endorsed by the previous administration. 

Following a tour of the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, Interior Secretary Ryan 

Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue last week signed a memorandum outlining the 

importance of cooperation between the two agencies in order to protect firefighters and 

communities during the 2017 wildfire season. 

"We look forward to working with leaders in both Agencies along with our state and local 

partners to explore opportunities to improve our operational efficiency and take advantage of the 

firefighting infrastructure and assets that are currently in place," states the memo, which was 

sent to wildland fire leadership. 

The move signals that the new administration plans to keep fire policy fairly stable, said Chris 

Topik, director of the Nature Conservancy's Restoring America's Forests program. 

"Compared to some of the things we're hearing from other parts of the administration, it's a 

positive statement to say that there are strong existing partnerships out there in the forest and 

fire world and to build on them," he said. 

While the memo focuses on continuing cooperation among fire officials, healthy forests are 

crucial for reducing levels of catastrophic wildfire and reducing the instances when wildfires burn 

so out of control that they threaten or take the lives of firefighters. 

TNC and other conservation groups are warning that federally funded collaborative programs 

with a track record of making U.S. forests more resilient are targeted by the White House's 

recent budget request and could undermine efforts to reduce catastrophic fire. 

58M acres at risk 

Firefighting activities would be boosted under the fiscal2018 proposal, but funding for state and 

private forestry programs- many of which facilitate forest thinning and prescribed burns that 

reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire- would be gutted by 50 percent. One bipartisan 

program, in particular, has shown impressive results, but its budget is zeroed out under Trump's 

proposal. 

"The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program is one of the most premier 

programs," said Dylan Kruse, policy director for Oregon-based nonprofit, Sustainable Northwest. 
5 

"We definitely understand budget constraints, but with the stakeholders the program has 

brought together, the amount of work it's accomplishing- this is the kind of innovative program 

we should have in these agencies because it makes the dollars stretch farther." 

Created by Congress in 2009, the CFLR program has racked up about 200 partners that have 

brought $100 million of private funding to the table. Since its implementation, the 23 projects 

under the program have treated more than 2 million acres of forest in landscapes the Forest 

Service deems highest-priority. 

Studies show that treated forests are able to better withstand the stresses of drought, climate 

change and wildfire. 

Since the program began, at a cost of $40 million a year, CFLR projects have collectively 

reduced hazardous fuels across 2 million acres of forests, restored wildlife habitat across 1. 76 

million acres and produced nearly 1.3 billion board feet of timber. 

To put that in perspective, in 2014, the entire Forest Service treated more than 4.6 million acres 

and harvested 2.8 billion board feet of timber with access to significantly more resources. 

The agency estimates 58 million acres of national forests are at high or very high risk of severe 

wildfire. 

But the budget? 

Going beyond the numbers, Mike Anderson, a senior policy analyst with the Wilderness Society, 

said his experience with the CFLR program has shown it is able to bring parties together that 

not long ago were at odds. 

In south-central Oregon, he noted, a timber company, environmental groups and local county 

commissioners treated 100,000 acres under the Lakeview CFLR project. 

But not every CFLR project has been smooth sailing. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative, or 

4FRI, is a massive public-private forest restoration effort to thin more than 2.1 million acres of 

forest in northern Arizona between the Forest Service and private business partners. 

The company running the job has faced criticism of its business plan by some 4FRI 

stakeholders and disputes with competing timber companies, further slowing its effort to rebuild 

the region's forest industry (Climatewire, July 9, 2015). 

In response to a request for comment regarding why the CFLR program was zeroed out under 

the budget proposal, the USDA press office said the final numbers will be decided by 

appropriators in Congress, "so it is premature to comment on the specific impacts it may have 

on any USDA program." 

The essential news for energy & environment professionals 

© 1996-2018 Enwonmenl & Energy Publishmg LLC 
6 

Senator CANTWELL. I cannot imagine a universe where anyone 

thinks that status quo at the Forest Service is acceptable, particularly in regards to the fires that we have been facing. The National 

Academy of Science has been very specific on this in an article they 

published showing that the current approach, the Trump Administration approach, simply falls short in the new era of intense fires 

that we are now facing. 

Treating our forests can reduce the amount of carbon released 

into the atmosphere and scientists are also telling us that the increased carbon levels causing climate change and extreme weather 

are major drivers of the fires we are experiencing today. So, as you 

know, we are caught in this very vicious cycle. But what is even 

more stressful is that the ‘‘status quo’’ of the President’s budget 

proposal is to use money that would pay for things that we could 

do up front, like thinning and controlled burns, and instead are 

trying to use that dollar to extract fossil fuels on public lands. 

During listening sessions in my state, in places like Colville, 

Wenatchee and Spokane, I have heard the same thing, ‘‘The science 

says that we should be focusing our nation’s attention on funding 

and getting ahead of the fire problem.’’ 

I want to highlight a couple of the things in the President’s proposed budget that reduce funding for firefighting. This budget proposes to cut almost $300 million from fighting forest fires and another decrease of $50 million for preventing wildfires. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
7 
8 

Senator CANTWELL. But the most troubling part of the President’s proposal is the practice of using the 10-year average to budget for wildfires. Neither the President nor Congress have used the 

10-year average to budget for the firefighting since 2015. My colleague here, the Chair of this Committee, and also in her role in 

Appropriations, provided enough money in each year’s budget to 

give the Forest Service the dollars it needed to fight the fires without robbing from important programs. 

Despite these efforts, we have heard just this month the Forest 

Service scientists saying that there is a 50 percent chance we will 

run out of the firefighting money this year, even though we have 

set aside some $1.6 billion for fire suppression. If that happens, the 

Forest Service will be back in the inevitable position of borrowing 

from programs to get firefighters to the line, and to make sure that 

we have the equipment and supplies we need to protect our communities. This budget, which goes in the opposite direction, which 

proposes cutting $300 million from fire suppression, is not the direction we need to go. 

I hope that today we can discuss these important issues. We 

need better protection of our communities and firefighters, and we 

need to make real investments that will make our forests more resilient. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
9 
10 

Senator CANTWELL. We need to use our resources more efficiently 

on things like hasty response—hasty response is tools that help the 

community respond faster. I know you know this, because you have 

heard from many people in our state. Ideas like the pine pilot help 

us reduce fuel and put money into things like cross-laminated timber. 

I also do not understand the prohibition in this budget on the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Forest Service uses the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund to make the working forests 

help maintain our rural jobs and stabilize our forests and product 

infrastructure, so I do not understand that prohibition. 

Obviously, I could go on and on about the recreation economy 

and how important those things go together with our national forests. They stimulate our economy, they give people access and we 

need to continue to make investments in that infrastructure. 

Chief Tidwell, I cannot decide what I should focus more on in 

this budget proposal. I could have talked about how we do not see 

any interest here in the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program. I see 

my colleague from Oregon is here. I am sure he will mention that. 

I could have talked about the proposal to zero out the legacy road 

and trail programs which we use in our state. I could have talked 

about the elimination of funding for collaboratives. My colleague 

and I had a chance to have breakfast a week ago with the Secretary of Agriculture, and he told me he just came back from the 

Pacific Northwest and heard what great things collaboratives were 

and that we had to encourage more of them. And then, here we are 

in this budget proposal not focusing on them... actually trying to 

cut funding for them. 

So, anyway, lots to talk about. I am sure we will get a chance 

in the Q and A. Again, sorry for my delay, Madam Chair, this 

morning, but this is such an important hearing. I am glad we are 

having it and look forward to having a chance to ask questions of 

our witness, Chief Tidwell. And I thank him for his service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Chief, if you would like to present to the Committee this morning. Welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cantwell and 

members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to 

be here to discuss the FY’18 budget request for the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

Our budget request is really just driven by addressing some of 

the key priorities that we need to continue to work on. And it’s one 

to restore the health of our forests and grasslands, it’s to reduce 

the threat of wildfire to our communities and to provide the public 

service that helps to sustain rural communities across America. 

This budget does provide for us to be able to treat 2.4 million 

acres to restore the health of our forests and grasslands and we 

predict it will produce 3.4 billion board feet. With this budget request, it also will allow us to treat 1.7 million acres of hazardous 

fuels in the wildland-urban interface to help reduce that threat. It 

also provides for all the resources we need to be able to continue 
11 

our success record of suppressing 98 percent of our fires during initial attack. And as you both mentioned, it does provide for the 10- 

year average cost of wildfire suppression. 

And I want to thank both of you and members of this Committee 

for their ongoing support and leadership to find a solution to be 

able to fund, or find a solution, to the cost of wildfire suppression. 

Back in 1998, 16 percent of our budget was in our fire programs, 

and today it’s over 53 percent with a projection that by 2025 it’s 

going to go to 67 percent. The 10-year average has increased $156 

million from FY’16 to FY’18, and this is part of the problem as 

we’ve had to propose some very difficult reductions in our budget 

request. But part of that is driven by this constant need to be able 

to increase the 10-year average. 

So each year that I’ve been up here, over numerous years now, 

I’ve been talking about the need to find a solution. So when you 

think about—and within our appropriation we can deal with 98, 99 

percent of the 7,000 fires that we deal with on an average year— 

it’s that 1 percent that usually results in close to 30 percent of our 

costs. And it’s what, it’s so difficult for us to be able to budget for 

that. It’s difficult for me to be up here to tell you this is how much 

money I need and with the, you know, with our best scientists they 

can predict, like for FY’18 that we’ll have a range of about $1 billion between the low end of fire costs and the high end. And we’re 

90 percent confident it’s within that $1 billion range. 

And so, this is one of the things that I want to continue to work 

with you to be able to find a solution to this because it has an impact, not only on our annual work when we have to transfer, but 

it has a continual impact on the erosion of our ability to manage 

our forests, to manage our grasslands and provide that service with 

year after year that the Appropriations Committee has to continue 

to put more money into the 10-year average. 

I appreciate the concern on the reductions that our budget request is making, but it’s a combination of being able to focus on the 

highest priority work and at the same time to be able to deal with 

this need to be able to increase our 10-year average. 

I look forward to having a discussion with you and to be, hopefully, be able to make the case today that our national forests and 

grasslands, our nation’s forests, they’re a good investment for 

America. It’s not only the economic activity, the jobs that are supported through the work and off these lands: it’s the water that’s 

needed for agriculture, it’s the water for the 60 million people in 

this country that rely on the water off our national forests, it’s the 

wildlife, it’s the fisheries, it’s the outdoor recreation, that all provide for the quality of life that we’re able to enjoy in this country. 

With that, I look forward to addressing your questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:] 
12 

Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief of the USDA Forest Service 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Concerning President's Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget 

for the USDA Forest Service 

June 15,2017 

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today 

to testify on the President's FY 2018 Budget request for the Forest Service. I appreciate the 

support this Committee has shown for the Forest Service in the past and I look forward to 

working with you in the coming months and years as we continue to improve our nation's forests 

and grasslands; increase our focus on the active management of our lands; and work with 

Congress on actions or options to address longstanding wildland fire funding concerns. 

The 2018 President's Budget for the Forest Service is nearly $5.2 billion, of which 

$467 million is mandatory funding, and is a good investment for the American public. The 

funding and related work will support between 340,000 and 370,000 jobs in the economy and 

contribute more than $30 billion in Gross Domestic Product. The Administration's commitment 

to rural communities, jobs creation, shared stewardship, and the production of goods and services 

from National Forest System lands is demonstrated by the funding level of Forest Products and 

the movement of Hazardous Fuels from the Wildland Fire Management to the National Forest 

System. Through the use of tools like the Good Neighbor and other Farm Bill authorities 

utilizing funding within permanent and trust accounts, the Forest Service will sell 3.2 billion 

board feet of timber while improving the resilience of more than 1. 7 million acres of National 

Forest System lands through hazardous fuels removal. 

The Budget strengthens the agency's financial accountability and increases predictability 

in its budget planning and execution process at both the National and Regional level. Starting in 

FY 2018, Forest Service firefighters will charge all base hours (the first eight hours of each day) 

to Preparedness and, when fighting fires, charge any hours over eight per day to Suppression. 

The agency is continuing to strengthen its financial accountability and credibility through the 

implementation of policies that reinforce timely obligation of funds, the management of prior 

year unobligated balances, and quarterly review of unliquidated obligations. 

The President's 2018 Budget 

The FY 2018 request focuses on: acquiring knowledge to better manage forests and 

expand markets for wood and biomass; high priority projects on State and Private Forests; 

active forest management, as well as building agency capacity for active management. To 

address these focus areas, the Budget makes key investments in the following program areas: 

• Forest Inventory and Analysis ($77 million, an increase of$2.14 million from the FY 

2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level)-to continue to implement the annualized 

inventory program in all 50 States (including interior Alaska), the affiliated Pacific 

islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

• Forest Health Management ($90.390 million, a decrease of$9.021 million from the FY 

2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level)-to continue to treat prioritized areas to 

reduce the potential for new outbreaks; protect these areas from damaging insects, 

diseases, and invasive plants; and reduce the risks of undesired mortality from wildfire. 

• Forest Stewardship ($20.5 million, a net decrease of $2.492 million from the FY 2017 

Annualized Continuing Resolution level)-to provide assistance to private landowners 
13 

seeking to manage their forest lands. Better management of private lands supports the 

maintenance of nearby national forest and grasslands, and provides an economic 

contribution to local economies. 

• Forest Products ($359.1 million, the same as the FY 2017 Annualized Continuing 

Resolution level)--to sell 3.2 billion board feet of timber and continue to build internal 

capacity in our workforce. 

• Capital hnprovement and Maintenance ($99.7 million, a decrease of$263.8 million)-to 

maintain a workforce that will implement critical infrastructure maintenance projects on 

National Forest System lands and remain ready to implement additional improvements 

that could be funded through the Administration's infrastructure initiatives. 

• Hazardous Fuels ($354.3 million, a decrease of$20 million below the FY 2017 

Annualized Continuing Resolution level)-As most hazardous fuels work takes place on 

NFS lands, the agency will be able to administer this program more efficiently and 

effectively if managed as pmt of the National Forest System. With the funding, fuels 

treatments in the wildland/urban interface will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire on I. 7 

million acres. 

• Preparedness ($1.34 billion, an increase of $259. 1 million from the FY 2017 annualized 

Continuing Resolution level)--this increase funds all base 8 costs with Preparedness. 

This is not new funding, but was shifted from Suppression where a portion of base 8 

costs have been charged since 2004. The Forest Service and the Department of the 

Interior are now using the same business rules. 

• Suppression ($1.057 billion, an increase of$247.4 million from the FY 2017 annualized 

Continuing Resolution level)-this amount fully funds the 1 0-year average costs for fire 

suppression. 

• The Budget for wildland fire management will fund up to 20 airtankers under exclusive 

use contracts. In 2018, these contracts will be funded with both Preparedness and 

Suppression funding. 

• The Budget does not include a proposal for a fire funding fix, but I look forward to 

working with the Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget and you 

to develop a responsible approach that addresses risk management, performance 

accountability, cost containment, and the role of State and local government partners in 

ensuring adequate funds are available for wildfire suppression without undue disruption 

to land management operations. 

Legislative Proposals 

In connection with the FY 2018 President's Budget, we propose several key legislative changes 

to improve our effectiveness in delivering programs and services: 

• Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. The 2018 budget proposes general 

provision language for a one-year reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act (FLREA) which is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 

2018. The Forest Service receives approximately $65 million annually in recreation fee 

revenue. Ninety-five percent of the recreation fees collected on a national forest stay at 

that national forest to be reinvested in recreation sites and services. If FLREA expires 

2 
14 

without reauthorization, the agencies will have no recreation fee authority for operations 

and maintenance of recreation facilities or for payment for the National Recreation 

Reservation System. 

• Small Tracts Act Conveyance Authority. We propose increasing the maximum value of 

the land that could be conveyed, from $150,000 to $500,000, to better align with cun·ent 

land values. 

• Extension of Grazing Permits. We propose that the terms and conditions of section 325 of 

Public Law 108-108 (117 Stat. 1307), which regard grazing permits issued by the Forest 

Service on any lands not subject to administration under section 402 of the Federal Lands 

Policy and Management Act (43 U S.C. 1752), shall remain in effect for FY 2018. This 

would address recent amendments to section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act and public concerns that the amendments do not apply to grazing 

permits issued by the Forest Service on the national grasslands and on eastern national 

forests. 

• Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act. We propose a one-year 

reauthorization of the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act of 

2005 (FSREA). FSFREA would allow the Secretary to convey administrative sites that 

the Forest Service no longer needs, and retain the proceeds from the sales for the 

acquisition, improvement, maintenance, reconstruction, or construction of facilities. 

Reauthorization would allow for better utilization of existing resources, increase the 

agency's ability to address health and safety issues, and enhanced service to the public. 

• Communications Site Program. The Forest Service seeks authority to retain $4.5 million 

annually to better manage the growing use of Forest Service lands for communications 

facilities. This will result in an increased annual return on investment to the Treasury 

within two years. This proposal will result in reduced processing time for new 

applications to provide better customer service (currently it takes one to three years to 

process a new application); enhanced and expanded telecommunications provided to rural 

communities via broadband, personal communications systems, and emergency services; 

and increased safety of visitors, agency staff, and first responders though additional 

communications capacity. 

Our budget request focuses on sustaining jobs (especially in rural America), increasing 

economic contribution, sharing responsibility for the stewardship of our natural resources, and 

more effective and efficient delivery of products and services. Our requested budget will enable 

us to continue to make progress addressing the growing extent and magnitude of our 

management challenges on National Forest System lands. Through strategic partnerships, we can 

accomplish more work while also yielding more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of all 

generations to come. I look forward to working with this Committee to fulfill the President's 

goals and our key responsibilities for the long term benefit ofNation's forests and grasslands and 

all Americans. I will be glad to answer questions you may have at this time. 

3 
15 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief. 

I should also note that Sherri Elliot is also with us this morning 

and is, I understand, prepared to answer any questions that may 

also come before the Committee. 

Did you wish to make a statement, Ms. Elliott? 

[No response.] 

Great. Thank you. 

Chief, let me ask a question about air tankers. This was something that did not come up at the Interior Approps Subcommittee 

hearing last week, but something, obviously, that we have been following. Over the past few years we have seen privately owned and 

operated, large air tankers that continue to demonstrate their ability to respond to these wildfires, and many are operating under exclusive use, multi-year, next-generation contracts from the Forest 

Service. They have been working with us as we work on this path 

toward modernization. 

I understand that Forest Service expects to issue a new round of 

exclusive use, next-generation, 3.0 contracts for operation in 2018, 

really moving this transition from legacy World War II and Korean 

War era piston engine aircrafts to newer, turbine-powered equipment. 

My first question, what is the timing and status of the next-generation 3.0 solicitation? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chair, we’re moving forward with the process to start the solicitation for this next round of large air tankers. 

And to do it so that by the time the legacy aircraft come off that 

we’ll be able to replace the legacy aircraft with additional next generation aircraft. And so, that’s our schedule, to be able to do that 

so that as those legacy aircraft come off of contract, then we’ll be 

able to bring on additional next generation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you anticipate the solicitation this year? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Indeed, it will be later this year, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think you know that I have some concerns 

about the Forest Service buying air tankers and, just more generally, having a government-owned fleet. I think we recognize that 

there is more to operating an airplane than just owning one. 

Our private owners, our operators, they have experience, they 

have made the investments to respond to the government specs for 

modern firefighting assets, and yet, they ultimately end up competing with the Federal Government for the work. So I have a series of questions to you in that vein. 

We were told that the number for the large air tanker modernization strategy was somewhere between 18 and 28 next-generation, large air tankers. Are you still looking at that many air 

tankers to bring online? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. As we have found with the next-generation 

aircraft, they are actually proving to be even more effective than 

what we first anticipated as we’ve been able to understand the capabilities of the aircraft. The pilots have gained experience, our 

folks have gained more experience, with these faster aircraft that 

can deliver much larger loads. 

But our strategy still holds that that range between 18 and 28 

with, I believe, as we continue to see the number of homes that are 

built in the wildland-urban interface and the conditions that we 
16 

face that we’ll probably be closer to the 28. For this year we have 

21 large air tankers that are available. In ’18 we will have another 

21 that are available plus the planes that we can bring on with 

call-when-needed. 

And so, that’s our current strategy. And as we continue to be 

able to bring on additional aircraft and understand their capabilities, we’ll adjust the number of planes that we need to just ensure 

that we are/can respond with adequate resources. 

The CHAIRMAN. But what do you think the message is, though, 

to the private owners, to the operators, who have stepped up to 

meet the demands as you are looking for that modernized tanker? 

They have made the investments, they have made the commitments, and now you are saying, well, the effort is to move away, 

to basically have a government-owned fleet and—in terms of what 

we are doing with the exclusive-use fleet of air tankers—you have 

next-generation, private-owned and operated aircraft that can meet 

that need and yet, you are effectively saying you are not going to 

be needed. The investments that you have made are not going to 

be utilized. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So the majority of our large air tankers will continue to be privately-owned and privately-operated. As we bring on 

the C-130Hs that have been provided for us over the next few 

years, they too will be operated and maintained by private contractors. We’re still going to need people to step up, to be able to fly, 

operate and maintain those aircraft. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how many of the C-130Hs, these military-converted aircraft, do you anticipate you will have as part of your 

fleet? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We’ll have seven of those but it will not be until 

2021 before we have all seven available. So over the next few years 

we’ll be bringing on probably one plane at a time. That’s what 

we’ve been flying the last couple years. But it won’t be until 2021 

where we have all seven. Those aircraft also have a life span of 

anywhere from about 8 to 12 years. So it’s one of the things we just 

have to look at to be able to factor that into the overall strategy. 

I really appreciate how the industry has stepped up to be able 

to make the investment and providing the next-generation air 

tankers, but I also remember the year when we didn’t have large 

air tankers because the contractor at that time chose not to meet 

the contract specs and we had to go through a fire season where 

we did not have an air tanker fleet. 

Now, I don’t anticipate that will ever happen, but I think there 

is some benefit to have a mixed fleet where we will continue to rely 

by the majority of the planes will be privately-owned and operated, 

but I think there’s some benefit for the government to have a few 

planes that are owned by the government but operated by a private 

company so that we just have that, a little bit of insurance, that 

we’ll always have aircraft that can fly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, we will keep on this conversation, but let 

me turn to Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I, too, want to follow up on this, but I am going to defer to my 

colleague from Oregon because he has a tight time schedule this 

morning and I want to allow him to ask his questions. 
17 

Senator WYDEN. I want to thank my friend from Washington 

State for her courtesy, and I want to be clear that I am very much 

looking forward to working with the bipartisan leadership here, 

Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell. 

This debate has been the longest-running battle since the Trojan 

War, and the reality is, you can almost set your clock by it. The 

infernos come to Oregon and Idaho and Senators Crapo and Risch 

and I traipse over to the National Interagency Fire Center to talk 

about our bipartisan push to change the system of fighting 

wildfires. 

I think we all understand, certainly the three of us who have 

been at this for years and our colleagues, that this is a broken, 

common-sense-defying system of fighting fire where you borrow 

from prevention to put the fires out and then the problem just gets 

worse. 

Senator Crapo and I have had this bill that now has more than 

250 organizations of scientists and timber companies and environmentalists supporting it. I think the question is, how do we make 

the story different this year? How do we finally end the gridlock? 

The three of us, I know, feel very strongly about getting there. 

I think what I would like to start with, Chief—you have been involved with us every step of the way, supported the legislation. 

Since we have been at this over four years, what has been the cost 

of inaction? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, there are several ways to look at 

that. You know, one of the ways is, I think back when we first 

started this discussion, if we could have found a solution it would 

have stopped the erosion of our active forest management programs, all the programs that provide the service. I think about the 

additional acres we could have treated over the last four years if 

we wouldn’t of had this impact on the appropriator’s ability to prevail/provide the funding. 

If you look out over four years and you look at just the growth 

of, you know, the 10-year average, we could have easily been treating millions of more acres over the last four years. And then think 

about into the future, about the next 10 years. 

So just with $156 million increase in the 10-year average, think 

about that over the next 10 years, $1.5 billion. And just think 

about what we could accomplish, the tens of millions of acres that 

we could treat to make a difference. 

We have the science, we have the experience, and we have study 

after study that shows that our projects are effective to reduce the 

cost of wildfires. It reduces the severity of wildfires. And there are 

independent studies that show that this work makes a difference 

and that we can reduce the size of wildfires by anywhere from 30 

to 70 percent and on average 41 percent by getting out there and 

doing the work. You’ve seen examples in your state. Senator 

Daines has seen examples. Senator Cantwell. Senator Murkowski. 

All of you have seen examples of this work that’s being done. 

Our challenge is to be able to get to a place where we can 

rightsize our budget so that we become more of that active management agency. And yes, we’ll continue to do the wildfire suppression job and we’ll continue to excel at that. But that’s just one way 
18 

to be able to capture that. And I can go on about the number of 

homes that have been lost. 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t we hold the record open, but I think 

that is particularly important for members to know that it is not 

some abstract thing, that the costs of inaction are extraordinary 

whether it is the millions of acres that could have been treated, 

homes lost, that kind of thing. So if you could get us that for the 

record. 

One other question, if I might. You were extraordinarily helpful 

to us on the stewardship contract, as you know, in John Day—a 

huge victory for a community that would have really been lights 

out on mills in Eastern Oregon without your intervention there— 

tripling the harvest on the Malheur. The stewardship program 

works very closely, although it is separate, with the Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program. Despite the success 

we have had with that Collaborative Forest Restoration Program, 

it is being zeroed out in the President’s budget, in my view, this 

is exactly what we ought to be expanding. I do not want to get you 

into politics and the like. You and I have talked about that over 

the years. 

What is your response to the proposition of whether the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is helpful, cost-effective and a positive force for rural Oregon and rural America? 

Mr. TIDWELL. So the CFLR projects have proven to be very effective. This concept of dedicating funds over time to large landscapes 

at a minimum of 50,000 acres and to do it in a collaborative way 

has not only increased the amount of work that’s getting done, it’s 

also resulted in a lot of financial contributions from outside the 

agency. The model has been proven to be tremendously successful 

and, with our CFLR Program over the last few years, we’ve been 

producing about 400 million board feet a year off of those projects. 

Now, the budget zeros that out, but it doesn’t stop us from using 

this model across the board to be able to make this long-term, dedication of funds to large landscapes and doing it in a collaborative 

way. I think it is a proven model. It took a few years for us to get 

started. But if you look at the results of this, I think it shows this 

is the right way for us to work, and there’s nothing in our budget 

request that prevents us to be able to do that. 

Those 23 projects that are currently ongoing? They now will just 

have to compete with all the other work. We will not have dedicated funding for those projects. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member 

Cantwell. 

We have had a string of very unfortunate events recently happening in Montana. Most are linked to Federal Court decisions that 

I know, Chief Tidwell, you are aware of. 

We have seen good, responsible, common sense, collaborative, forest management projects shut down because of the Cottonwood decision. 

Then just two weeks ago, we saw the halt of a thoroughly researched and vetted Forest Service project, the Montanore Mine. 

The Forest Service estimates this project will provide full employ-
19 

ment of 450 people at full production with an annual payroll of $12 

million during the production phase of operations and the indirect 

economic benefits are even greater. 

This is in an area of Montana that has some of the highest unemployment in our state. In fact, this is Lincoln County. I remember a conversation a few years ago with a couple in Lincoln County 

and they said, ‘‘Steve, what we basically have up here in Northwest 

Montana is poverty with a view.’’ 

We have these elitists that will sometimes fly in on their private 

jets and seek to shut down what is going on in Montana in terms 

of common sense, responsible, natural resource operations. Likewise, this mine will provide important minerals, such as silver and 

copper, that the United States uses in everything from our phones 

to wind turbines. 

Chief Tidwell, can you give an update on what the next steps are 

for the Montanore project? And do you share my commitment to 

see this important project move forward? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We’re currently just reviewing the decision that we 

received on that project and at this point haven’t determined the 

next steps. But we’re just currently reviewing that decision. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, I cannot think of a strong enough term, but 

outrageous would come to mind for starters, of what happened 

there and we need to get that resolved. 

Chief Tidwell, I strongly support the Administration’s emphasis 

on increasing management in our national forests, but I think we 

can and must improve management on federal lands while continuing efforts to also improve forest health on family-owned and 

cross-boundary lands. 

As we all know, wildfire is not a respecter of the boundaries that 

we draw on maps and neither is forest management. I recently 

joined Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota in sponsoring legislation to encourage partnerships between the state forests and the 

Forest Service to carry out such landscape restoration efforts. 

My question, Chief Tidwell, is can you speak to the value of empowering state foresters to do more cross-boundary work, including 

on national forests, using this Good Neighbor Authority? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, the Good Neighbor Authority is also 

proving to be very, very successful. It took a couple years for us to, 

kind of, put the process together where we work very closely with 

the state foresters so that we had a process that not only worked 

for us, but more importantly, worked for them. And because of that 

we are moving forward to be able to increase the work that’s getting done on the national forests. 

And your point that we need to be looking at this more as an alllands approach is exactly what needs to occur. We need to be reducing the fuels, thinning out our forests on both sides of the fence. 

Doing it on just one side doesn’t accomplish the success that we’re 

after. 

So Good Neighbor Authority, we currently, I think, we’re doing 

74 projects across the country. We have eight master agreements 

with states and we’re planning to increase that. Most every month 

we’re bringing on another state that wants to work with us. We’ve 

had some great examples in your state where we’re working closely 

together. Your state has also provided additional resources to be 
20 

able to increase the amount of work because they recognize the difference that this can make. 

And yes, the jobs are essential. Being able to maintain the industry is absolutely essential. But it’s also the difference that we’re 

making on the ground to reduce that threat to be able to prevent 

that blacked landscape to have more green—— 

Senator DAINES. At a discussion just two weeks ago in Montana, 

we had members of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation there with 

us. When we talk about wildfire and reducing wildfire risk, we talk 

about jobs. But wildlife habitat is something—we are seeing the elk 

population declining, not because of wolves, not because of hunting 

pressure, but because the forests have gotten so thick the elk are 

not able to get to the grass because the canopies then prevent the 

sunlight from getting down to the ground and having, basically, 

habitat for elk. 

Lastly, a follow-up. Would you agree that landscape-scale, wildfire mitigation across all forest ownerships is both necessary and 

crucially important? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Without any question. And we have the studies 

that show that if we take this all-lands approach, we can be highly, 

highly, successful and have a very different consequence when we 

do get fire. And we’ll continue to have fire, but there’s a big difference from a fire that has a lightly burn to moderate burn that 

was easy to suppress, reduces the risk to our firefighters versus 

some of the severe fires that you’ve seen in your state. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. Thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chief Tidwell, the budget proposal would also be reducing funding for volunteer fire departments by 23 percent. Now this is a very 

big concern to us. If there is one thing I have heard loud and clear 

from communities all across my state it is that they are playing a 

key role because of the number of fire starts that are there, and 

oftentimes they are the first responders to these fires and helping 

us do whatever we can to help contain them as other people come 

onboard. So isn’t this just going to make the whole fire-suppressing 

budget more expensive overall, if we cut the funding here to these 

volunteer community organizations that are helping us? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, this is just one of the very difficult 

choices we had to make with this budget request. And yes, our volunteers are essential. They’re often the first responders that this 

country relies on. With this budget request there is less funding 

that will be available, but we will continue to do what we can to 

provide the equipment, the surplus federal equipment, that’s so essential to these volunteers. But it’s just another example of some 

tough choices that we have. 

I want to come back to the need to fix the fire funding problem 

that we have, and this idea that each year we have to continue to 

increase the amount of money we put into fire suppression. That 

takes away the discretion to be able to provide for other programs. 

It’s just another one, another example, of the things that could 

change if we can find a fix for dealing with fire suppression. 
21 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I will guarantee you my colleagues 

here in the United States Senate are well on their way to having 

that fixed—we have a kind of determination. We have to get some 

of our colleagues in the House on board, who did not think taking 

up legislation at the end of the year was a necessary item. 

But I still do not think that that means in a budget that you, 

in an environment where we are seeing drier, hotter conditions and 

this year—I do not know if we have the map of where things are 

going to be—but we already know where this year’s fire season is 

going to dominate. It’s going to dominate in Northern California 

and Northern Nevada. They are going to take it on the chin, just 

as the Okanogan did, just as the Carlton Complex devastated over 

100,000 acres in, basically, an afternoon. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
;0 

Hawaii 

Significant Wildland Fire Potential Outlook 

August & September 2017 

Significant Wildland Fire Potential 

• Above Normal ......., Geographic Area 

Boundary 

Predictive Services 

Area Boundary 

Below Normal 

0Normal 

--State Border 

greater than usual fike!ihood that significant wildland fires will occur. 

lS and inteNals during normal significant wildland fire potentia! conditions. 

than usual during forecasted below normal periods. 

Puerto Rico 

Map produced by Predictive SeNices, 

National Interagency 

Boise, Idaho 

Issued June 1, 2017 

Next issuance July 1
23 

Senator CANTWELL. So we need to make sure—because I think 

the public probably gets it if they slow down and think about it— 

these forests are in rural communities, and the problem is largescale. Oftentimes these volunteers are the only people there for 

first response. I hope that as my colleague and I continue to work 

on this, we certainly will not be shortchanging the volunteer fire 

departments because they are our best resource, in my opinion, 

right now to help us have a hasty response to wildfires. 

The collaboratives—my colleague just mentioned this—I also do 

not understand zeroing out collaboratives. These are things that 

have given us our best effort to date on working collaboratively. We 

can talk, as I have, on the pine pilot where we can get collaboratives to be even more successfully implemented, but why zero 

out collaboratives? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, the request zeros out just dedicated 

funding to that one program but it doesn’t prevent us from working 

that way and continuing our work with collaboratives. We can still 

accomplish that same kind of work, we just don’t have that dedicated funding that, I feel, it proved to be successful. And often 

when you’re starting a new program it takes that dedicated funding to be able to get things started, to be able to provide the message, the incentive, for folks to make those long-term investments. 

And so, that’s why it’s proven to be very effective. 

Once again—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Are you saying that you will use money then 

for collaboratives? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We’ll continue to work in a collaborative way and 

those 23 projects will now compete with other projects across on 

the national forests. If they’re chosen to be still the highest priority 

work, we can still continue that work. The difference is that we 

just don’t have that dedicated funding for those projects. 

Senator CANTWELL. And so, do you think you are taking away a 

message from people, don’t do collaboratives? I am trying to understand where you are fitting this in as a priority. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, that’s definitely not the intent. I think the 

collaborative work that’s gone on across this country has proven to 

be highly successful. It has proven to be able to bring people together to get work done. 

These projects have a really good track record of very little litigation and often very few, even, objections because of the way that 

these projects have been put together and with this long-term focus 

of dedicated funding on large landscapes. But it’s one of the things 

that I’d like to see us working across the board. I think it is the 

model for how we do our work and that those 23 projects have been 

very successful. But we still could be able to continue that. We just 

don’t have that dedicated funding. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we will look forward to following up on 

that with you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for 

being here. 
24 

Chief Tidwell, I want to talk to you about a couple of issues facing my state. 

In 2009, the Forest Service finalized a motorized travel plan for 

the Dixie National Forest which, as you know, is in Southern Utah. 

The plan closed more than half of the roads in the forest which 

substantially restricted recreational access, but also blocked a number of practical, economic opportunities in surrounding communities. Understandably, local officials and residents had a reaction 

to this, a reaction that was not favorable, and they strongly opposed the travel plan and had implored the Forest Service, again 

quite reasonably I think, to reopen those closed roads. One of the 

justifications given at the time of the announcement for these road 

closures was that the Forest Service did not have enough money 

to maintain the roads in question. 

As a potential solution, officials in Garfield County, Utah, where 

most of the roads in question are located, have offered to assume 

both the responsibility of maintaining the roads and all of the accompanying costs associated with that and to do so in exchange for 

easements that will allow for public access. This is a reasonably 

concocted and mutually beneficial exchange that would benefit both 

the county and the Forest Service. 

So, Chief Tidwell, is this a solution you could support? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, when it comes to travel management it 

continues to be one of the most controversial issues that we deal 

with. And as we try to rightsize our transportation system to one 

that is what is needed and what we can afford, often there are 

roads that either were constructed or just user-created roads that 

through that process—and it’s usually a process where we’re talking to everyone in the counties—that we identify roads that need 

to be closed. 

Now if there are roads that are needed on the transportation 

plan that we’re struggling to be able to provide the funding, we 

have a long-running program, Scholars, our Schedule A agreements 

with counties, that when I was a district ranger and forest supervisor, I worked with our counties to be able to, for them to accept 

the maintenance on these roads and then they do get a little bit 

of additional gas tax money. But to be fair, especially in your state 

and these counties that have small populations, that additional gas 

tax that they receive doesn’t fully cover their cost. However, many 

counties are willing to accept that just because they recognize the 

need. 

So that is the program that we’ve been using and want to be able 

to use it with Garfield County and other counties in your state. It’s 

proven to be very successful. They can take over the maintenance 

on these roads that are on our transportation plan and they then 

do get some additional gas tax dollars. 

Senator LEE. But they would have to do it in this way. Does this 

differ substantially from what they have offered you? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I think, I’m not quite sure just what they’re 

offering. I mean, that’s the program that I’ve used and I know that 

it’s available now. But I’m not quite exactly sure what they’re offering. 
25 

Senator LEE. Okay. But you are willing to commit to continue 

working with the Garfield County officials to try to find a workable 

solution that is mutually agreeable? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Another prominent issue in Utah involves timber harvesting. According to your agency’s own numbers, the volume of timber harvested on Forest Service lands has decreased by about 80 percent 

just over the last 30 years. This decline has been crippling to a lot 

of rural communities in my state and in many other states, especially in the West, and especially in communities in Southern Utah 

whose economies relied so heavily on timber harvesting. These 

communities are deeply frustrated because timber harvest not only 

boosts their economies, but they also improve forest health and 

they help protect them from the risks associated with forest fires 

which are then enhanced when you do not have adequate management and adequate, responsible, environmentally sensitive harvesting. 

Can you tell me, Chief, why is it that we are not allowing more 

timber harvesting when doing so would produce not only economic 

opportunities and aid a lot of these rural communities who have 

suffered so much in recent decades but would also have favorable 

impacts on the health of the forest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, we’ve been working, really, as hard 

as we can over the last few years to be able to increase the amount 

of work that’s being done. I’ve been very clear that there’s 65 to 

83 million acres of our national forests that need some form of restoration. And of that, there’s 15 million acres that we have no other 

choice but to do some form of timber harvest on that. So we’ve been 

very clear about the need and we’ve been using programs like the 

CFLR Program. 

I’d like to share a great success story on the Manti-La Sal. I just 

was watching a video clip where it talks about how the mill is now 

using the dead spruce logs for log homes, but then also for saw timber and then using the other products for everything from bedding 

for dairies, to firewood. It’s just, it shows the success that’s out 

there. 

Our challenge is to be able to get more of that work rolling. And 

where we’ve made great efficiencies over the years, our problem is 

that we keep losing the staff, keep losing resources to be able to 

get at this work. And it’s driven by this constant pressure to increase our funding in wildfire funding. And so, that has been one 

of the biggest challenges. So today, from back in ’98 when I left 

your state, there are 50 percent fewer foresters today than we had 

in ’98, 39 percent fewer Forest Service employees outside of our fire 

programs. 

Now at the same time, we’ve reduced our unit cost by 33 percent. 

So we’ve been able to, kind of, stay status quo. But to be able to 

get at the work that you’re talking about, we have got to be able 

to stop this erosion of our other programs and really rightsize the 

agency so that we can be responsive. 

We have the support, the social advocacy, for doing this work 

and I’m going to share that success story with you on the MantiLa Sal because it’s the perfect example of what needs to be done 
26 

when we can come together and provide a little bit of our side of 

the work that needs to occur so that these folks can go to work in 

the woods. We’re committed to be able to expand this. 

We also need to be able to expand our markets. There’s just no 

question. And that’s why this example, I was just so impressed 

with it because they show how they’re using every single piece of 

that log that comes off the forest and even whether it’s in the sawdust or chips or firewood or logs or saw timber, that is the model. 

And these folks are just doing an excellent example. 

Our challenge is we’ve got to accelerate. I’ve been talking about 

accelerating the pace and scale of our restoration work, but we’ve 

got to get aggressive about this, otherwise we’re going to be having 

the same discussion 10 years from now. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Chief. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Chief Tidwell, for appearing before us again. It is always good to 

see you. 

The President has talked a lot about infrastructure, but his 

budget actually cuts investment in our nation’s infrastructure. For 

example, the capital improvement and maintenance spending at 

the Forest Service—the President’s budget cuts it by 73 percent, 

the facilities budget would decline by 84 percent and the roads 

budget by 57 percent. Chief Tidwell, what would be the impacts of 

the proposed infrastructure cuts spelled out in the President’s 

budget? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, we’re going to focus our budget request on maintaining the staff and expertise to be able to do the 

facilities work and the road work and the trails work with the anticipation of an infrastructure plan that will provide the additional 

resources. 

So, yes, it’s going to take both and your point that with, just with 

this budget request, if there isn’t an infrastructure plan it would 

be very impactful on our programs, whether providing recreational 

access or access for our timber management for our forest management. So it’s going to take a combination of this budget request 

plus the infrastructure plan for us to carry out our work. 

Senator FRANKEN. I understand. We are six months into the new 

Congress and we have very little clarity about an infrastructure 

bill from the Administration. All we do know is that it is going to 

include tax cuts and encourage public/private partnerships, but 

that is not going to help the Forest Service build and maintain facilities and roads unless we get more details and find that it does. 

But the bottom line is that these proposed cuts are real and they 

have been spelled out. I hope we get a lot more clarity on this infrastructure bill. 

Chief Tidwell, you and I have discussed the devastating impacts 

of climate change on wildfires previously. You have been discussing 

that fighting wildfires is costing us a lot of money, more than half 

of your total proposed budget, and all that spending means that 

preventive measures such as hazardous fuels treatment are receiv-
27 

ing less funding, not to mention the fact that the overall funding 

for these programs, again, is getting cut in the President’s budget. 

So I am very interested in exploring how we can find new markets for forest waste—you were just discussing that with Senator 

Lee—and do that in order to help pay for removal of hazardous 

fuels and simultaneously bring economic benefit that can use 

waste. Things in Minnesota, unfortunately, are working or moving 

in the opposite direction as wood waste, biomass energy, is struggling mightily to compete with cheaper natural gas and wind. 

My question is, can you tell us how you see hazardous fuel management and what opportunities exist in this space? For example, 

it seems to me that district energy projects and combined heat and 

power plants are an ideal market for these hazardous fuels, particularly ones that are located near our forests, the wildland-urban 

interface. I am wondering what you see as the future of that kind 

of market, of that kind of way of removing hazardous waste and 

getting something for it, getting a value for it, to make it either 

cheaper or make, or not a net payment at all for removing hazardous waste? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, there is and it’s another key part of 

us to be able to accomplish the overall forest management job that 

we have. We have to find ways to have strong, economic markets 

for all the material that’s coming off. The saw timber is the easy 

part. But it’s more the small diameter. 

And so, to be able to find ways to be able to use biomass for energy, to be able to also find ways for—to use the small diameter 

into building materials, like what’s called the CLT product, excuse 

me, that can take small diameter material and use it into structural timber, into mass timbers. They’ve been doing this in Europe 

for years where they’re building tall rise buildings out of wood 

using mass timber. We are actually building two of those buildings 

in this country today, to be able to demonstrate the use of this, and 

we have two plants that are producing the product today and I 

know of two more that are coming online. This is just one of the 

things that need to occur. 

Now, the key to this is a couple things. One, we’ve got to provide 

certainty so that investors know there’s going to be X amount of 

material that’s going to be available and not just for a year or two. 

It’s got to be for multiple years. So we need to invest more in our 

stewardship contracts that are multiyear, ideally 10 years at a 

minimum, to be able to provide that certainty. And then to be able 

to find ways to incentivize the startup of these programs. We do 

it through our wood innovation grants that are helping folks to be 

able to see how to do it, and then to recognize it takes a certain 

volume to make these efforts successful. And so, it’s got to be at 

the right scale to be able to move forward. And then, our biggest 

challenge still is the transportation costs. 

Senator FRANKEN. Sure. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is the biggest problem we have with moving 

to small diameter material. If we have a facility that’s close, it pencils out really well. But the other part of it is that we need to recognize the outcome that we’re after. And so, if there’s additional 

cost to remove this small diameter material, we need to think 

about the overall benefit and to be looking at, really, the change 
28 

we’re making on the landscape to really carry that investment. And 

does it make more sense for us to pay for somebody to pile up that 

material, come in there and burn it, just put up more smoke in the 

air, or does it make more sense to be able to move that material 

where we can put it to beneficial use, even when it doesn’t quite 

pencil out, but it helps to contribute to that outcome that we’re 

after? It’s just one of our challenges that I’m asking our scientists 

to be able to put the economic information together in a way that 

makes this a more compelling argument about the need for this 

overall investment. 

If you really look at the end outcome, from my view, it more than 

satisfies, it more than carries, the need for the upfront investment. 

The work that we’ve seen, at a minimum, our investment in fuels 

work and thinning out our forests, it’s a three-to-one return on 

every dollar. That’s the most conservative study. Some studies 

show it’s a nine-to-one return. So this is a good investment. Our 

challenge is to be able to make a more compelling economic argument to be able to justify that investment. 

Senator FRANKEN. Boy, that answer is just music to my ears. I 

really believe that we can leverage the value of the hazardous 

waste and, even when it does not pencil out exactly, that it makes 

so much sense and maybe this is one way we can address and we 

can prevent fires. We cannot do as much fire borrowing as we have 

been doing. 

I would love for everyone to pay attention to the answer that the 

Chief just gave. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I do want to correct for the record that we are talking about hazardous fuels and not hazardous waste. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. This Committee is a little bit different, particularly to Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator FRANKEN. No, no, we should not burn hazardous waste. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Just clarifying. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry. Hazardous fuel. 

The CHAIRMAN. We all understood, but—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, but sometimes I am not precise with my 

language which is ironic. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will let Senator Cortez Masto take up the 

hazardous waste part of it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Ironic wasn’t the right word. 

[Laughter.] 

Go ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Let’s move to Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chief, I appreciate the conversation today, thank you for this. 

Just recently the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, I found out, are projecting a very strong probability for Northern Nevada to see wild and forest fires this summer, particularly 

in July and August. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
;0 

Hawaii 

Significant Wildland Fire Potential Outlook 

August & September 2017 

Significant Wildland Fire Potential 

• Above Normal ......., Geographic Area 

Boundary 

Predictive Services 

Area Boundary 

Below Normal 

0Normal 

--State Border 

greater than usual fike!ihood that significant wildland fires will occur. 

lS and inteNals during normal significant wildland fire potentia! conditions. 

than usual during forecasted below normal periods. 

Puerto Rico 

Map produced by Predictive SeNices, 

National Interagency 

Boise, Idaho 

Issued June 1, 2017 

Next issuance July 1
30 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. With the 53 percent cut of the Forest 

Service’s budget spent, or actually it’s 53 percent of your budget 

spent, on fire suppression, and the cuts that I am seeing and particularly, under President Trump’s budget, the cuts to the Forest 

Service would impact state and private forestry budgets. In fact, 

the Nevada Division of Forestry would experience a 40 percent 

funding loss. Obviously, that would be devastating to us in Nevada—in Northern Nevada and particularly the Western states. 

How will the Forest Service address these concerns if the Administration’s budget is implemented by Congress? I am curious. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, we will make the most of the funds 

that we receive to be able to continue to work with the states and 

with the counties to be able to do the work and to provide as much 

assistance as we can to the counties and the states, especially for 

the volunteer fire departments. But there’s no question that there’s 

going to be impacts from our proposed reductions. They’re not easy, 

they’re difficult, and there’s none of them that I really like. But it’s 

just the reality of having X amount of money and really where we 

want to focus our funds, and that’s what this budget does. 

One of the things I need to point out, it’s the second time the 

map has been put up. And yes, in your state later this summer we 

expect to have an above active fire season. The thing I need to 

point out is all that white, that’s a normal fire season. 

People need to remember that normal fire seasons are much 

more active than what they used to be. If you look at the top ten 

fires that we had last year, yes, California was the red area on the 

map last year and we had, I think, probably four or five of those 

large fires. But we had another five very large fires that were all 

in those white areas, so I just wanted to make sure that no one 

is ever misled by our map. But yes, you are in the spot, along there 

with that part of California that we expect to have a very active 

fire season this year. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Which is why I am concerned with the 

recommendations of the budget cuts. There are many things I am 

concerned with in the budget cuts, but obviously for this very reason. Let me follow up because I am curious about this. 

As you well know, our Nevada National Guard, our 152nd Airlift 

Wing, is actually outfitted with a C-130 aircraft which has the Forest Service’s MAFFs equipment. Under Trump’s recommended 

budget, how would MAFFs be impacted, and particularly, our Nevada National Guard Airlift Wing? 

Mr. TIDWELL. This budget request would still provide for the 

same level of large air tankers that we’ve had and will need. 

In addition, we’ll continue to always rely on our long-term agreement with the MAFFs operation. They provide that surge capacity 

that when we get to those parts of the year, like potentially there 

in August in your state when we have a lot of resources out, that 

we can call up those units, those pilots who are trained. We make 

sure that we do some training exercises with them early before the 

main part of the fire season so that they’re ready. They are quick 

to respond, and it’s amazing how quick they can slip those tanks 

into their aircraft and be able to respond to our fires. 

So they’re just a key part of it and under any scenario—— 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. But they won’t be impacted—— 
31 

Mr. TIDWELL. ——there will be no impact on our MAFFs. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. The fire suppression retardant, MAFFs, 

will not be impacted at all by anything in the Trump budget? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Right. No impact. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Okay. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. I will pass and go after Senator Hirono. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much. 

Chief Tidwell, we know you are very committed to the mission 

of the Forest Service and you just said that you need to get a lot 

more aggressive about advocating for your needs, but clearly President Trump is not on your page because his budget cuts the Forest 

Service by $900 million, one-third of which has to do with the firefighting account. 

So as we sit here, I do not know how many times we have focused on the need for more funds for firefighting and we all agree 

on that, but the President’s budget goes the other way. Aren’t you 

frustrated? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, it’s always frustrating to not be in 

a position to be able to ask for the ideal funding level, but what 

I’m up here to actually ask you for is this level for funding and be 

able to concentrate on what we’re able to get done with this. 

But yes, ideally it’d be great to be up here to be able to ask about 

it. I think back to when we first started the discussion on trying 

to fix a solution to the fire borrowing and the impact on other programs. 

Senator HIRONO. So—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. And I think about the potential of funding. It could 

have been redirected for active management over these years. 

Senator HIRONO. Well at this point we are not even talking about 

holding the line, we are actually cutting the Forest Service by a lot. 

Let me go on with another question that I have. As you know, 

Hawaii does not have a national forest—and there are about ten 

states that do not have national forests—but instead relies on programs administered by the Forest Service that cooperate with our 

state and local partners. One such program is important to us and 

that is the Forest Legacy Program. Other states we know and local 

municipalities, I suppose, or others, count on this Forest Legacy 

Program. 

This program helps conserve and protect Hawaii’s forests from 

invasive species, something that we really struggle with in Hawaii 

and provide critical habitat, recharge our watersheds, et cetera. 

And just last year Hawaii received $4 million, which for Hawaii is 

very important, for a land acquisition project and a conservation 

easement project. 

Of course, the President’s 2018 budget proposes the elimination 

of the Forest Legacy Program noting that in Fiscal Year 2018, the 

Forest Service’s focus will be on the maintenance of the existing 

National Forest System lands. I believe that there is value in having the U.S. Forest Service invest in protecting Hawaii’s forests. Do 

you agree? 
32 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, I agree with the focus of this budget 

request to be able to focus on, you know, maintaining and restoring 

the lands that we currently are responsible for. 

There’s no question that the Forest Legacy Program has been 

very successful to be able to keep working landscapes working and 

to provide those conservation easements so that the forests, the 

ranches, continue to be working landscapes. There’s no question 

about that. 

But when we’re in these difficult budget times, we have determined that this year we need to focus on the lands that we have. 

Senator HIRONO. But that means that there are some ten states 

that will not be able to access the Forest Legacy Program because 

you do not own lands. We have no national forests in ten states, 

so states like Hawaii will be basically out of luck. I think that is 

very unfair to states such as Hawaii. 

I had a question about the huge cuts to the Forest Service program and what the impact will be on your firefighting account but 

I think we have talked about that enough. 

I mentioned that one of the strategic programs/activities in the 

Forest Service budget is invasive species. The President’s budget 

proposes reducing that account by 16 percent, or $5.3 million. 

In Hawaii we face—and I know you know this—continuous onslaught of invasive species that threaten our environment. An example is the Rapid ‘Ohi‘a Death, an invasive fungus that has been 

ravaging our native ‘Ohi‘a trees and continues to spread across Hawaii Island. Frankly, the death of these trees will affect the health 

of our watersheds on that island. 

Have the number of invasive species threats to our nation’s forests substantially decreased over the past year and, if not, is it responsible to be reducing our investment in invasive species detection, research, technology development and control? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, there’s no question with this budget 

request that we’ll be able to do less work when dealing with 

invasives; however, I’m hopeful that with the level of funding that 

we do have and you then look at the work that’s been ongoing that 

support, the awareness of dealing with invasives, especially in your 

state, that we’ll be able to continue to be able to address this. And 

so much of it is, a lot of it is awareness. There’s also the biological 

controls that we need to continue to do the research on to be able 

to find the solutions to that. 

But it’s just one of those areas where, once again, we will have 

a significant amount of funding. It’s not at the same level to be 

able to continue that work. And yes, we’ll be doing less, but when 

I look at what we have ongoing with our partners working so closely with the state and with the universities, I want to remain optimistic that we’ll be able to continue to address that problem. 

Senator HIRONO. I will certainly be working with you all to make 

sure that we are, in fact, maintaining a level of activity in this area 

and research because $5.3 million is a relatively small amount and 

I think that it should be restored. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Chief Tidwell, welcome back. 
33 

Last year you and I discussed the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) interim recommendations for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in federal procurement. EPA was 

recommending lumber only, and that recommendation for lumber 

only included the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified lumber, excluding other sources. 

In my state, nearly four million acres, or 85 percent, of all certified lumber is from two other certification processes, the Standard 

Forestry Initiative and the American Tree Farm System. I think 

last year you mentioned that timber from the national forest land 

is not subject to a certification standard. So I am kind of bringing 

this to a head. 

Your testimony today suggests that expanding markets for wood 

is one of the foci, if you will, for this budget. Could the EPA’s recommendation to only use FSC-certified lumber impact the Forest 

Service’s ability to meet the Fiscal Year ’18 target volume of 3.2 

billion board feet of timber sold? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, Forest Service, we recognize all 

three of the certification programs that have proven to be very 

helpful, especially with our private forested land to be able to have 

access so those additional markets that are driven by certification 

programs, and we continue to work with EPA to be able to get that 

across. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now maybe your understanding of this is 

greater than mine, so I do not know the answer to this question, 

except my understanding is that if this EPA reg goes forward that 

for federal procurement the FSC must be the one that is used, not 

the other two. So when you say you recognize all three, but if some 

of the land is not certified with FSC clearly that—according to that 

EPA regulation—that board cannot be sold for federal procurement. Is that a correct understanding? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That’s my understanding and I just need to clarify, 

the U.S. Forest Service recognizes all three of those certification 

programs and I’ve been disappointed that we have not been able 

to convey that in a way to EPA. We’re continuing to work with 

them. 

Senator CASSIDY. I get that. If that EPA standard becomes final, 

to what degree will that impact your ability in your budget to meet 

your target volume of the 3.2 billion board feet timber sold? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It—I don’t think it will have an impact on our ability except when you look at if there’s a reduction, you know, in 

markets across the board, there could have a corresponding impact 

on our ability. I mean, last year we had 500 million board feet that 

we put up and had no bids on that sale, on those sales, which is 

highly unusual to have that level. But it just shows how tight the 

markets are. So I think anything that limits the markets could 

have a corresponding impact. 

Senator CASSIDY. So if there is a lot of board being purchased for 

federal procurement and forest land services are not able to participate in that sale, you are saying that might flood the market for 

the non-federal procurement, making the federal timber less attractive for purchases? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, I’d have to ask our folks to run 

some analysis on that. 
34 

My point is that I think all three certifications should be recognized. From our view they, all three, provide the assurances that 

people are looking for. 

The wood that comes off the national forests, we don’t follow a 

certification program because if you look at all the regulations and 

laws that we follow to be able to, for the wood that comes off the 

national forests, it actually exceeds any certification program. 

And—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Well I am almost out of time, so let me ask— 

you have mentioned you have been discussing with EPA to reconcile, if you will, your standards and theirs. I think it is intuitive 

that it is going to impact the marketability of Forest Service land, 

if their standard is something which is not complied with. Just intuitively it is going to happen. 

So can I ask what is the status of those discussions and what is 

the holdup of the resolution of those discussions? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, it’s—we’re going to continue to have discussions with them, and I don’t know what the true holdup is. I’ll take 

the responsibility that we just have not, I have not made the compelling argument. And if we need to provide more information, 

more data, we are committed to be able to do that. 

But this is just one of those areas where, I just think, from my 

viewpoint that all three programs should be recognized and that 

there’s no need to recognize just one over the other two. 

Senator CASSIDY. Can you just, for the record and to our office, 

let us know the details of that communication? And if there is a 

holdup, perhaps we can facilitate the resolution. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We can do that, Senator. And I appreciate your 

help on this issue. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chief, we have votes that have begun and there are a series of 

three. I have quite a few more questions that I would like to ask 

and I know that Senator Cantwell has some as well. I am hoping 

that you can stay for about a half an hour, maybe you can take a 

quick walk around the building—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. ——or return some phone calls, but we will 

stand in recess until the conclusion of this series of three votes. My 

hope is that it will be no more than a half an hour. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, we stand in recess. 

[RECESS.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is back. 

I will note that we still have one more vote, but I figure with the 

timing, we have about 20 minutes before we have to go back for 

that third vote. Many of my colleagues have indicated that they 

will be submitting questions for the record, so we will see what we 

can do in this time period, see if we can’t kick it out, but we appreciate you giving the Committee the indulgence here. 

Chief, I want to talk about things going on in the Chugach National Forest right now. Last week we discussed the recreation 

funding. The budget is looking at about a four percent decrease, 

roughly $10 million. It appears that, not only in the Tongass which 
35 

we discussed last week the problems with the outfitter guide permitting, we are seeing the same problems in the Chugach. Instead 

of creating more opportunities to grow recreation by permitting 

outfitters and guides, it looks like those activities are being curtailed. We have a number of tourism operators that would like to 

offer new tours on the Kenai Peninsula, but the Forest Service has 

not solicited new applications for user days of permit operations in 

nearly three years now—three years is a long time. They say it is 

due to a lack of staff, but they also say there is no need for new 

recreation operations. 

I have heard from numerous guiding operations who have applied and were basically told ‘‘check back.’’ These guides range from 

heli-ski operators to fishing and mountain guides to small boat 

tours in Prince William Sound. One guide was even told come back 

in seven years—come back and check with us in seven years. The 

website, Chugach’s website, says, ‘‘the Chugach National Forest is 

currently not accepting proposals for outfitters guides at this time.’’ 

I just do not understand it. It does not make sense to me because 

last June, a year ago, you issued a memo suggesting that we have 

this streamlined permitting of special recreation use permits. It 

specifically encouraged any forest which may have a moratorium 

on special use permits to reevaluate that decision and consider lifting that which, again, would be appropriate. 

The question to you this morning is why do we have this moratorium on issuing new guide and outfitter permits in the Chugach 

and are you looking to lift that? What are you doing to help facilitate opportunities for recreation within this very important national forest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Madam Chair, I’m not aware of any moratoriums and I will personally look into the issue there on the forest 

to be able to address that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask though, because again, on the 

Chugach National Forest website it says, ‘‘the Chugach National 

Forest is currently not accepting proposals for outfitter guide activities at this time.’’ I do not know whether that translates, whether you call that a moratorium. I look at that and say, okay, at this 

time they are not taking it. But then when people are inquiring 

they are told to check back in seven years. To me, that sounds like 

a moratorium. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So Madam Chair, there’s no question that on some 

of our forests it takes a lot of time, years, to be able to respond. 

And that’s one of the things we’re working on to change. And it’s— 

we’re focusing on reframing our approach so that the folks that 

work on our special use permits can use their time on the more significant requests and not be spending a lot of time on activities 

that really don’t contribute to any more impact than what’s already 

occurring from the public. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. And by doing that we can free up our time to be 

able to address the requests that you just indicated—things like 

the heli-skiing operations—that do take a little bit more work than 

some of our other activities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess I am even more confused because 

I look at some of these requests—okay, maybe heli-skiing is in a 
36 

different category—but you have a small boat tour in Prince William Sound. You already have existing small boat tours there. Fishing and mountain guides, to me, these are not big considerations. 

They are not something brand new, carving new territory here, but 

they can be considerable economic drivers in terms of building out 

these tourism opportunities. 

Again, we have had so many conversations where we push so 

hard to try to get the timber cut up so that you can have jobs 

there. We are told by the Forest Service, nope, do not pursue that 

activity. We want you to pursue the recreation opportunities. Then 

when these individuals, these operators, try to put themselves forward to do just that, they are told, well, come back, check back in 

seven years. 

You just cannot shut down the forests, you just cannot. Some 

way or another there has to be an effort to revisit this. Again, I 

liked your memorandum from last year that says, hey, if there has 

been a moratorium, revisit this, look at it. 

So the question to you is whether you will revisit, relook at what 

is going on on the Chugach right now? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We definitely will revisit and look into that, and 

then also see what we need to do to be able to expedite addressing 

those applications. 

I know that having less staff is not anything that anyone wants 

to hear about, but it is the reality. And each year we receive over 

6,000 special use applications that we have to process. Over the 

years we’ve been able to actually reduce that backlog by about 33 

percent, but that’s still a lot of folks out there that we are not able 

to respond to in a timely way. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, and I am asking you here this 

morning if you will commit to looking specifically at what is going 

on in the Chugach. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask about another Chugach issue, and this is one that 

you are also aware of. This is the Cooper Landing and Resurrection 

Pass Trail. 

For about 40 years now we have been trying to clear a route to 

move the Sterling Highway near Cooper Landing on the Kenai Peninsula. This highway runs within feet of both the Kenai and the 

Russian Rivers. This is an area where we have about half of Alaska’s population that flows through every year. 

One potential bypass route at Cooper Landing is the Juneau 

Creek alternative. It has the support of conservation, fishing, community groups, the Department of the Interior and the Department 

of Transportation. A land exchange to adjust the boundary of Mystery Creek Wilderness is in the works. The one issue holding it up 

is an objection by the Forest Service because they say the route 

would cross the Resurrection Pass Historic Trail, but the Trail is 

not actually impacted because a bridge would be built over Juneau 

Creek Canyon so the Trail can then pass under the bridge. 

So I am asking this morning if you will commit to having the 

Forest Service reexamine the agency’s comments during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process concerning the Juneau 
37 

Creek alternative and then commit to considering supporting that 

alternative in revised comments before Federal Highway. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, it’s my understanding that we have 

provided comments on all the alternatives, but we do not have a 

position on any one of them which is preferred, but we will look 

into this to make sure that there’s a clear understanding of the 

comments that we’ve presented and that, but we do not have a position on any of them as a preferred. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate you saying that you will reexamine or relook at this. Again, this is a unique situation where virtually everybody else has come to a consensus position and it is the 

Forest Service that is the only hold out here. So I just ask you to, 

again, reexamine. 

Let me shift down south to the Tongass. The Forest Service fiveyear timber sale schedule indicates that there will be no timber 

sales within any proximity of the Viking Sawmill. You know well 

about Viking. But it is my understanding that until about 2020, 

that is going to be the situation. 

It is also my understanding that the agency has three National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) teams that are working in the 

region, but only one is working on a project that can help supply 

the mill. Even if that project is successful, it does not do much to 

restore a three-year supply of timber. 

Viking’s situation, we always talk about Viking kind of hanging 

on by their fingernails. Once again they are looking at a situation 

where they expect their timber supplies to be pretty much depleted 

by 2020. 

I am asking this morning whether the Forest Service would commit to adding additional timber sale teams to supplement the current five-year schedule and then really, what else is possible? What 

else can be done to ensure that we do not lose Viking? 

Obviously, we have worked very aggressively here on Mental 

Health Trust to help facilitate that and we have been successful 

with that but, again, so much of this hinges on the viability, the 

continued viability, of the only medium-sized mill left in Southeast 

Alaska. 

What is the survival plan here for Viking? And can you get an 

additional timber sale team to look at this five-year schedule? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Madam Chair, I would really like to be able 

to add an additional team there and an additional team on maybe 

every forest and we’ll do what we can within the resources that we 

receive. 

It’s my understanding that folks are working together with the 

state and Sealaska to have a program of work that will provide a 

volume of timber to ensure, not only Viking, but the other operators. And that over time, you know, our commitment is to continue 

to increase that to ensure that those businesses stay open. They’re 

key to sustaining those communities. And so, it goes way beyond 

just what we talk about here. 

This, you know, the timber production on the Tongass, for me, 

is really essential to sustain communities. That’s what it’s about. 

And yes, it makes use of renewable resources. It provides, you 

know, some wood locally. It provides a lot of jobs but it sustains 

those communities. 
38 

So, if our budgets, as we move forward, if they provide for that 

flexibility for us to be able to add, to get additional work with everything else that we’re doing, that’s ongoing, I’d be glad to look 

at that to be able to get more done. 

As you and I have talked, I think I’m committed to be able to 

show that we can have a sustainable flow of timber off the 

Tongass, and that as we move forward, to be able to show that the 

things that we’re working on will make a difference. 

The work that we’re doing with the state right now, they’re currently working through a Good Neighbor Authority to be able to do 

the sell at layout and also even the appraisal on a sell this year 

so that we can learn from the state about their processes, so we 

can find, you know, additional efficiencies, not only in how we do 

our work, but then also, with their appraisal system. 

It’s one of the things that we need to also make some adjustments to our appraisal system so that when we do put a sale up, 

we can ensure that it’s something that’s going to be viable, even 

if, like on projects like the Big Thorne, that are over multiple 

years, we got to have the flexibility to be able to adjust the rate 

on those sales to ensure that they stay viable. 

So it’s a combination of all of those things, that’s what it’s going 

to take to be able to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to 

sustain those communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, and recognizing your offer here to show us 

how we are going to make this all happen, I would ask that you 

help me with the rationale for the young growth transition and this 

assertion that somehow they are going to be revenue positive. 

I would ask you to provide me with the financial analysis for the 

young growth transition and whatever background supporting materials are out there that led to this position that you believe it will 

be revenue positive. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chair, we’ll be glad to provide that information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Thank you. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, Chief Tidwell, welcome to the Committee today. 

I apologize for being late. We had an amendment on the Floor and 

several other Committee hearings today, so I thank you for sticking 

through this hearing with us. 

I had a meeting right before this hearing with the Mayor of 

Nederland, Colorado, which is right by the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest in Boulder County. One of the biggest concerns Mayor 

Larson expressed to me was his concern about what happens in the 

urban interface now with what seems to be an increasing number 

of campers who are coming in, but these are not just ordinary sort 

of campers who are there for the weekend. They are almost a permanent camp, encampment, that is creating fire risks—according 

to the Mayor—and creating litter and law enforcement challenges. 

According to the Mayor, the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest 

basically has one officer for the entire region and was talking about 

ways that we could, maybe, help out, he mentioned drug paraphernalia that is being found in these sites. 
39 

Is there a law enforcement initiative or effort that we could help 

with that might address some of these concerns so people who want 

to go—law-abiding citizens who want to go—and enjoy the forests 

are not either deterred from that experience or have less enjoyment 

because of these kinds of activities? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, there’s a couple things that we could 

do. 

First, since you brought this to my attention, I’ll talk with our 

law enforcement officers to see if we can’t shift some additional resources there. Often we can bring some additional folks in for a 

short period of time to address the problem. Also, to see what else 

we can do with the counties, through our co-op law fund to be able 

to apply—— 

Senator GARDNER. And I want to make sure that I am not criticizing you—I think you are doing work with it—and that there are 

some additional efforts they are doing. I want to thank you for that 

too. 

So—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. But I think also through our co-op of law agreements which we have with the sheriff there where we work in conjunction to be able—because when we get these situations that 

sometimes occurs and we can get in there and inform people that 

here’s the, you know, the limits on camping, et cetera and they’re 

not, you know, sometimes we do get folks that are living on the national forests for a variety of reasons. And we just need to help 

them to be able to move on before this gets really established. Once 

it gets established it’s much more difficult. So I appreciate you 

bringing it to my attention, and we’ll look into see what additional 

resources we can provide. 

Senator GARDNER. Thanks, Chief. 

Of course, if there is a way that we can work with the Forest 

Service on the solution, long-term too, we are happy to help look 

at that and I know there are resource issues involved as well. We 

are happy to help address some of those questions. 

You and I have talked about this before, the fact that Colorado’s 

economy is so reliant on the outdoor economy, the recreation, and 

the incredible partnerships that are necessary to enjoy our great 

outdoors. If you look at the vast number of ski resorts, ski areas, 

in the state many of them are entirely located, if not at least partially, on the national forests. For the fourth season in a row, the 

state ski resorts have sent record-setting revenue back to the U.S. 

Treasury Department. During the 2015–16 ski season, I believe 

Colorado ski resorts sent back about $25+ million to the Treasury. 

I have talked to you, your staff, about this and the Forest Service 

is challenged in keeping up with the growing recreation industry 

as we see more uses of the forests, both in the summer as well as 

the winter, and now new summer activities. 

The White River National Forest staff and budget steadily eroded 

over the past several years. We have talked about this before. We 

are working on legislation with Senator Wyden. What is the Forest 

Service’s plan to help address this erosion of local capacity to serve 

recreation that is critical to so many of our communities? 
40 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, the thing that I think is key to address this problem is simply, we have to find a solution to the cost 

of wildfire suppression funding. It continues to erode our capability. 

As I pointed out to the Senators earlier today, just between 

FY’16 and ’18, the 10-year average goes up $156 million. And that’s 

not a one-year cost. That’s there, and so if you look at that over 

the next 10 years, you know, it’s $1.5 billion. 

Senator GARDNER. Yes. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So you think about if we can find a solution to 

that, how we could reinvest that type of funding and to be able to 

address this. 

The point you make with ski areas and especially as we move to 

now four-season ski areas, which we’re really encouraging these operators to expand their operations beyond just the winter. They 

have the infrastructure, they have the facilities and it’s a safe environment for folks. But we need to be responsive to their request for 

adding additional facilities, and it is frustrating at times that we 

cannot respond to another great set of partners. 

And we’re doing what we can to be able to find more and more 

efficiencies, but I’ll tell you, the reality of it is with our recreation 

funding, like all of our programs, just continue to have this pressure of having to deal with the cost of dealing with wildfire suppression. 

Senator GARDNER. I think that is something that we have to address, this issue of wildfire borrowing, putting it into that, absolutely. 

Just a quick question on the Executive Order that was signed in 

April by the President. It was titled, ‘‘Promoting Agriculture and 

Rural Prosperity in America.’’ There was this phrase, ‘‘The task 

force shall identify legislative, regulatory and policy changes to promote rural America... including changes that,’’ paragraph 9, ‘‘ensure that water users’ private property rights are not encumbered 

when they attempt to secure permits to operate on public lands.’’ 

This Executive Order was issued in April, but the Forest Service 

has yet to remove its guidance on acquiring water rights and has 

also offered testimony that seems critical of the Water Rights Protection Act in the House just a couple of weeks ago. And that was 

a bill that was designed to protect against the Federal Government 

trying to put in place a permit condition of the cost of private water 

rights. 

I want to make sure that I understand that—and I hope the answer is—that water rights owners are going to continue to enjoy 

their private water rights without facing federal overreach. If you 

could respond to that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, we rely on the state laws when 

it comes to, you know, dealing with water. Our sole effort on this 

is really one thing—by keeping the water with the land, we can 

maintain multiple use. 

And so, we were able to work out agreements with the ski areas 

so that they took on that burden to ensure that the water would 

stay, would be there available for the permits so that we can ensure that people can continue to ski into the future, no matter how 

tight water supplies get. 
41 

It’s the same thing with our grazing permits. You take that 

water off the land, we eliminate livestock grazing. And so, we want 

to work with the states and work with our permitees to be able to 

maintain that multiple use. 

But water rights are controlled by state law, and we respect that, 

but our sole focus is simply being able to keep water on the land 

so we can continue multiple use. So we work with the states to be 

able to address that. 

Senator GARDNER. I appreciate that. 

Can I get your commitment that there will not be any kind of 

a condition in a permit or permit approval to require a bypass flow 

as a condition of the permit grant? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I think we need to look at, you know, the 

issues there. And I know this is at times, controversial with, you 

know, our current authority to be able to provide for bypass flows. 

But if we eliminate that water—so you eliminate potentially grazing, you eliminate fisheries, you eliminate water for wildlife. That’s 

why we need to find, I think, a balance. 

And just—— 

Senator GARDNER. But balance has to be achieved under state 

water law? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, it’s my understanding, I think, even in Colorado with us when it comes to like the state lands, that they require that water to be able to be retained onto the land, to be able 

to provide that mix. So—— 

Senator GARDNER. Unless the water is judiciously decreed a 

water right? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yeah, yeah, yes. 

And so, I mean, we recognize, you know, the state water, but I 

think there’s some benefit to the public for us to be able to maintain our ability to condition diversion points and to condition access 

to ensure that folks can use their water, but be able to do it in a 

way that we can also provide for multiple use. 

Senator GARDNER. So you are telling me that you are willing to 

condition a permit by requiring someone to keep their water? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I think that the—if you look at our practices that— 

and I’ve had to deal with many of these issues throughout my career—— 

Senator GARDNER. That would be—— 

Mr. TIDWELL.——where we’ve been able to sit down and work 

with the water owners, people that have the water rights and be 

able to work with them to provide, be it bypass flows or sometimes 

just to provide water for wildlife at a spring development. And 

we’ve been able to do it in a way that they can access their water 

but at the same time, we can continue to provide for multiple use. 

So I think it’s—— 

Senator GARDNER. Well, understand if it is, I mean, look a water 

right is a water right. It is not the Federal Government’s. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Right. 

Senator GARDNER. It is an individual’s private water right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s a water right. 

Senator GARDNER. And so, if an individual who is reliant on a 

grazing permit is then subjected to a process where you will only 
42 

grant the grazing permit if they give up their private water right, 

that is kind of an unfair bargaining position. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I agree with you, and that’s not what we want to 

do. We want to keep the water there for the livestock operator. 

What I’m talking about is when we have someone that wants to 

divert that water off of the national forest so there’s no longer 

water left for livestock grazing. That’s when we feel that we need 

to use our authority to be able to continue to provide water for livestock or for wildlife, and at the same time provide the owner of the 

water right, you know, access to their water. But it’s about just 

being able to maintain multiple use. 

And so, you know, throughout my career we’ve always been able 

to work out these issues by working with the owner of the water 

to provide whether it’s some instream flow or for, provide some 

water for wildlife or for livestock, but at the same time to be able 

to provide—and sometimes they have to change the appointed diversion. Sometimes, you know, and then once the water leaves the 

national forest it’s, you know, they can, of course, do anything they 

want with it. 

But I recognize the need to be able to have the diversion points 

high up in the watersheds. But we just need to be able to work together on this to be able to define, you know, that agreement, with 

following, you know, the state water law. So we’re not requiring 

people to transfer their water rights but we do want to work with 

them to be able to provide water on the national forest for multiple 

use. 

Senator GARDNER. Well, I hope that we can continue this conversation because I do think that it is a matter of protection of private water rights. We have to be very, very clear on this point. 

Thank you for allowing me to go significantly over my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, and I am glad you had the opportunity. 

Chief, I had raised last week the issue of the effort to acquire 

lands at Cube Cove on Admiralty from the Shee Atika Native Corporation. We have a split estate issue. You know the issue. The 

Forest Service is only acquiring the surface rights. We have pretty 

good reason to believe that there are opportunities for minerals in 

the subsurface. Your staff in Alaska has been working, trying to 

find a solution to gain the subsurface to these lands. I am going 

to ask you to get back to us in terms of any progress that has been 

made on agreement with Sealaska to acquire the subsurface to the 

22,000 acres that you have signed an agreement to purchase. 

I would ask you to respond to that one in writing. 

The last question that I want to ask—and the time is up on this 

vote so I am going to have to scoot here—but Secure Rural Schools. 

You have so many members of this Committee that are struggling 

to find the answers. Our Committee had a hearing not too many 

weeks ago on this topic, and legislation to reauthorize the program 

has been introduced. Does this Administration support the Secure 

Rural Schools program? 

Mr. TIDWELL. So Madam Chair, we do not have a recommendation in our budget request for this year. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that it is not in there. 

Mr. TIDWELL. No. 
43 

The CHAIRMAN. And that sends some signal, but I guess a more 

direct and pointed question is whether or not you support the reauthorization of SRS funding? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I have not had those discussions with the Secretary yet. I can speak at length about the benefit of the program 

and the need to provide some certainty and a safety net to our 

counties and our boroughs. I think the Secure Rural Schools program has proven to be an essential program for those reasons and 

at the same time, you know, we’re committed to being able to, you 

know, increase the amount of work that’s occurring to increase 

more revenues. 

But the reality of it with markets, especially, there’s always 

going to be tremendous fluctuation in those payments to the counties and the boroughs. I think it just really justifies a need for a 

program to provide that level of certainty and a safety net that 

they can rely on year after year. I can only begin to appreciate 

what the counties and the boroughs have to do when they are not 

sure how much they’re going to receive next year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Or have such a significant reduction. It’s a very 

difficult situation for them. And I just, I believe strongly we need 

a solution. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is a roller coaster. It is a roller coaster that 

causes stress. People that do not have the money put together, flyins to come out here, literally begging us. 

Senator Wyden and I have this conversation, as I do with my 

Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell, about where this puts these 

communities because they do not have that certainty. While it may 

not look like a large amount of money, in some communities you 

are talking $350,000, it may be one-third of their budget for that 

small community. 

And so, recognizing the importance of it, it is something if you 

have not had that conversation with the Secretary, know that I 

have, know that others have, and trying to find that solution that 

offers to some greater certainty to our communities is a place that 

we need to get because right now there is panic in a lot of small 

towns in rural America and many in Alaska. 

Chief, I am sorry that we do not have more time, but I am going 

to go vote. I know that others will have questions that they will 

submit to you. 

I appreciate that all the budgets that we are dealing with right 

now, in many areas, are not adequate to meet the need as we deal 

with budget realities. But know that this Committee is eager to 

work with you to define how we get good value out of those federal 

dollars, how we work to make management work within our forests. We have some work ahead of us but communication is going 

to go a long way, and I appreciate you being here today and working with, not only myself, but other members of the Committee to 

help effectuate that. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(44) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
45 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Please provide, as you committed to do at the hearing, the financial analysis for the 

young growth transition, and any other supporting materials in the administrative record that led 

to the assertion made in the 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 

that the young-growth transition will be revenue positive. 

Answer: The conclusion that the net present value of the overall timber program is positive and 

that young growth alone will be profitable after 25 years is supported by the financial analysis 

contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for the Tongass Land 

and Resource Management Plan Amendment The agency used theW oodstock model for its 

programmatic analysis, which is a strategic planning tool designed to explore differences relative 

to decision-making. The FEIS included the financial analysis generated from the model to offer a 

relative comparison of timber sale revenue among alternatives. Certain cost and value data were 

used in the Woodstock model, which was disclosed in Appendix B to the FEIS. The assumptions 

and values used to develop the estimates were updated following comments received on the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and represented the best available information at the 

time [FEIS, Appendix I, p. l-140]. 

The Woodstock model provided results that, when viewed over 15- and 100-year planning 

horizons, resulted in positive net revenues for all five alternatives analyzed [FEIS, p. 3-516]. 

Alternative 5, the Selected Alterative, also resulted in modeled positive net revenues over the 25-

year planning period [Id.]. Positive values for the five-year increments that comprise years 1 to 

25 are due to the old-growth component of the projected harvest. In contrast, in most cases the 

net revenues generated by the young-growih component alone were negative [ld.]. The FEIS 

concluded that this modeled, programmatic analysis suggests that individual timber sales offered 

under any of the alternatives in the first 25 years of the planning period will likely need to 

include a mix of old growih and young growth to appraise positive as required by Public Law 

112-74, House Report 2055-257, Section 414 [FEIS, p. 3-517]. 

The FEIS Woodstock modeling results by alternative, and by summary charts and tables, are 

included in the administrative record at document numbers 769 01315 769 01322. 

Question 2: In your oral testimony, you stated that the return on investment for hazardous 

reduction was 3 to 1 or 9 to 1. You said that this was based on certain studies. Please provide 

copies of the studies you were referring to. 

Answer: In 2014, the Forest Service, with The Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Nevada 

Conservancy, issued a report entitled, 'Whv Sierra Fuel Treatments Make Economic Sense' 

which included the following conclusions: 

• The economic benefits oflandscape-scale fuel-reduction treatments far outweigh the 

costs of wildfire. 

• The economic benefits of fuel treatments may be three or more times the costs. 
46 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

• The avoided losses, in terms of both costs and lost income opportunities, include the 

value of structures saved from wildfire and the costs of fire suppression and post-fire 

restoration, as well as potential revenue from carbon sequestration, merchantable timber, 

and biomass that could be used for energy. 

• The study showed that the modeled fuel-treatments scenario reduced the size of each of 

the five fires by 30 to 76 percent, or a total reduction in size of approximately 41 percent 

• The study estimated a range of benefit-cost ratio values from low to high, with the 

benefit-cost ratios for the fuel treatments ranging from 1.9:1 to 3.3: 1. 

• Although achieving such benefits requires a significant increase in funding to achieve the 

appropriate pace and scale of fuel treatments, the long-term cost savings far exceed the 

costs of the initial investment 

There have been a number of other site-specific studies about the cost and benefits of hazardous 

fuels treatments. The benefits of hazardous fuels treatments fall into four broad categories: 1) 

Economic value of forest products that are removed such as saw logs, wood chips, and biomass; 

2) Wildfire suppression costs avoided because of the reduced hazardous fuel; 3) The value of 

other market and non-market benefits of the hazardous fuel treatment, such as improved wildlife 

habitat, improved recreation opportunities, and improved watershed functions; and 4) Other 

avoided costs related to the impact of wildfire include homes that did not burn, administrative 

sites and infrastructure not damaged, forest products not consumed or devalued, municipal water 

sources not silted, recreation opportunities not devalued, etc. Of course, the lives of citizens and 

firefighters are priceless. 

Other studies that demonstrate the economic value of fuel reduction treatments include: 

• Mokelumne Watershed Avoided Cost Analysis, http//ww-w.sierranevada.ca.gov/ourwork/mokeltrmne-watershed-analysis 

• Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Restoration-Based Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Treatments vs. No Treatment, 

http//cdm l7192.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p l7192co!ll/id/265/rec/l 

• Economic Impacts ofWildt!re, lillm-;lLl:lwlilllllli&ntl\'\f.QI:!u@~:l.::. 

• Fuels Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Cost Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge, May 2012, 

https://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/documents/FMIR Fuels Treatments Reduce Wildtir 

e Reportpdf 

• Review of Economic Benefits from Fuel Reduction Treatments in the Fire Prone Forests 

of the Southwestern United States, http://swtlreconsortium_.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/ll/Econ Final_ Web.pdf 

Question 3: At the hearing I asked you about a "moratorium" on permitting new outfitter/guide 

activities on the Chugach National Forest. Since the hearing, I noticed that the Chugach 

removed from its website the following statement: "The Chugach is currently not accepting 

2 
47 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

proposals for outfitter/guide activities at this time." Will the Chugach now accept proposals for 

new outfitter/guide activities? 

Answer. Yes, we are accepting new recreation special use proposals. There is no moratorium on 

outfitter and guide permits in the Chugach National Forest. 

Questions from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Question 1: Methow Withdrawal 

On December 30, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a notice of 

application for withdrawal and opportunity for public meeting in the Federal Register. The 

publication of this notice segregated 340,079 acres of National Forest System land in the 

Methow Valley in Washington, subject to valid existing rights, for up to 2 years from settlement, 

sale, location, and entry under the public land laws, location and entry under the mining laws, 

and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

Sections 231 0.3-l(b )(2)(v) and 231 03-2(c)(2) of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

specify that the BLM must schedule one or more public meetings on applications for 

withdrawals involving 5,000 or more acres of! and. A meeting must be "held at a time and place 

convenient to the interested public, the applicant and the authorized [BLM] officer." 

The BLM gave notice at that time "that a minimum of at least one public meeting will be held in 

conjunction with the withdrawal application." The BLM also opened a 90-day public comment 

period through March 30, 2017. 

I understand that the Forest Service, the applicant for a twenty-year withdrawal of these lands, 

has been in discussions with the BLM to schedule a public meeting. It has been nearly six 

months since publication of the Federal Register notice and nearly three months since the close 

of the comment period. I am concerned that this meeting is being inappropriately delayed. 

A public meeting will provide the BLM and the Forest Service essential local community 

feedback on the withdrawal proposal. The views of the community are a primary reason I have 

sponsored S. 566, legislation that would permanently withdraw this same federal land, subject to 

valid existing rights. 

When should the public expect this required public meeting to take place? 

Answer: The Federal Register Notice package announcing the public meeting to discuss the 

application for withdrawal in the Methow Valley is at the Department of the Interior for 

approval. 

3 
48 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Question 2: Urban and Community Forestry 

The Urban and Community Forestry program provides money for the planting and long-term 

care of trees in our communities. This funding makes communities in Washin1,>ton and in the 

rest of the Country more livable, healthier, more energy efficient, and more vibrant. I have heard 

that this administration wants to invest in infrastructure. Community and urban trees are just that 

critical infrastructure for both rural communities and inner cities. This program would be one 

great way to focus due attention in both of these areas. 

Why is the administration proposing to eliminate that funding? 

Answer: The FY 2018 President's budget reduces funding in order to focus resources on 

maintaining existing national forests and grasslands. This budget will require greater shared 

stewardship of the land between the Forest Service and State and local communities to achieve 

our work 

Question 3: Fire transfers 

In 2015, you transferred significant amounts of money from non-fire programs to pay for the 

firefighting costs of one of the worse fire seasons in recent history. Your transfers affected 

numerous projects and programs in Washington, including the Legacy Roads and Trails 

program. 

Of the funding transferred from the Legacy Roads and Trails pro1,>ram in FY 2015 to pay for 

firefighting, how much was transferred from the National Forests in Washington state? 

Answer: At the end ofFY 2015, Region 6 (which includes Oregon and Washington) provided 

$1.3 million of unobligated Legacy Roads and Trails balances for tire transfer. 

Later in FY 2015, a supplemental appropriations bill was enacted, providing the Forest Service 

sufficient funding to repay all of the non-fire accounts from which funding was borrowed to pay 

for firefighting. Yet, I have been told by several groups in Washington that the funding 

appropriated never returned to the National Forests in Washington to pay back the money that 

was taken from their programs, specifically the Legacy Roads and Trails program. This funding 

was particularly important to these groups because they were waiting with matching funds to 

initiate Legacy Roads and Trails projects on the National Forests in Washington. 

How much funding was transferred nationally from the Legacy Roads and Trails budget line 

item in 2015 for fire-borrowing? How much of the funding was returned to the Legacy Roads 

and Trails budget line item nationally after the supplemental funding appropriated to the Forest 

Service? 

4 
49 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Answer: Approximately $1.9 million ofunobligated Legacy Roads and Trails balances was 

used for fire transfer, and 100 percent was returned. 

Question 4: Soberanes Fire 

I am worried about the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability around how the Forest 

Service spends funding on firefighting operations. Sometimes, it seems like there is a blankcheck mentality, kept by the Forest Service, even when responding to a lower number of 

wildfires or wildfires that pose lower risks to communities. 

I understand last year's Soberanes Fire on the Los Padres National Forest in California was the 

most expensive fire suppression operation in history. I also understand that because of the 

expense, a major internal audit of the management of the wildfire and the expenses incurred on 

the wildfire has been undertaken. 

A member of the fire community has contacted my office about the audit. That person wanted to 

bring to my attention a situation that if true, I would find deeply troubling. The person claims 

that the Forest Service is considering not releasing the results of the audit because the waste 

uncovered during the review was so blatant. 

Because one of the roles of Congress is oversight of the actions of Executive agencies, l am 

requesting that you provide me and the members of this Committee the results of this audit. 

Specifically, lam requesting 

l) an explanation of why so much money was expended on the Soberanes Fire, 

2) the percent of the land burned in the Soberanes Fire that "attained resource benefits" 

or improved forest conditions, 

3) the expenditures that the internal audit committee deemed unnecessary or wasteful, 

4) an account of how you are addressing those expenditures and the employees or 

contractors that incurred them, or the employees that made a decision that resulted in 

that spending, 

5) the recommendations provided by the committee conducting the internal audit as to 

what should be done to prevent unnecessary or wasteful spending from occurring on 

future wildfire incidents, and 

6) what actions the Forest Service will undertake to implement any recommendations 

made by the committee conducting the internal audit. 

Answer: The Soberanes Fire was under unified command with the State of California (Cal 

Fire). We are still working to finalize the large fire cost review, but we will be happy to brief the 

Committee when it is complete. Our final review will help provided answers to your specific 

questions above. 

Question #5: Airtanker Retardant 

5 
50 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15, 2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

I am concerned about the overuse of aerial firefighting retardant. I have seen numerous peerreviewed studies (many from Forest Service scientists) that show that it can be relatively 

ineffective and expensive. I understand that while fire retardant has advantages over water in 

certain circumstances, water oftentimes can be just as effective and significantly cheaper and 

faster to deploy. 

I understand the Forest Service has undertaken a study on Aerial Firefighting Use and 

Effectiveness, beginning in 2012. Though the Forest Service has stated that findings of the study 

will start to be released in 2017, none have been released to date. When can we expect to see the 

Forest Service's annual detailed fire suppression aircraft use summaries-for FY 2015 for 

example? 

Answer: Summaries for 2015 and 2016 are planned for release by the end of the 2017 fire 

season. The summaries will provide context and statistical validation for the effectiveness 

sampling that the Aerial Firefighting Use and Effectiveness study continues to collect. 

Questions from Senator Ron Wyden 

Ouestion 1: Chief Tidwell, at the budget hearing in the Energy Committee, I asked you about 

my wildfire fix, and the costs of inaction over the last four years. You mentioned the millions of 

acres that could have been treated, and the effects this would have on reducing the severity of 

wildfires. 

Can you please elaborate ou the costs of Congressional inaction associated with failing to 

fix fire borrowing? 

Answer: Suppression funding has historically been based on the 1 0-year rolling average of 

suppression costs, which continues to increase each year, while the overall Forest Service budget 

has been relatively flat. This has resulted in increased fire suppression appropriations and an 

equal reduction in non-fire programs. Additionally, the increasing role of wildland fire 

suppression and preparedness in the agency has caused a downward shift in the number of 

National Forest System personnel, down 39 percent from 1998 to 2016. 

Reductions to non-fire programs as a result of the shift of financial and human resources to the 

Wildland Fire Management accounts have been significant. These programs not only support the 

Forest Service's restoration work that would help prevent catastrophic fires, but also the 

protection of watersheds and cultural resources, upkeep of programs and infrastructure that 

support thousands of recreation jobs and billions of dollars of economic growth in rural 

communities, and the range of multiple uses, benefits, and ecosystem services, as well as 

research, technical assistance, and other programs that deliver value to the American public. 

Between 2001 and 2015, funding decreases to the following programs occurred: 

6 
51 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

• Vegetation and Watershed Management funding decreased by 24 percent 

• Facilities funding decreased by 68 percent 

• Roads funding decreased by 46 percent 

• Deferred Maintenance funding decreased by 95 percent 

• Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness funding decreased by 15 percent 

• Landownership Management funding decreased by 33 percent 

• Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management funding decreased by 18 percent 

• Land Management Planning funding decreased by 64 percent 

• Inventory and Monitoring funding decreased by 35 percent 

Left unchecked, the share of the budget devoted to fire in 2025 could exceed 67 percent, 

equating to reductions of nearly $700 million from non-fire programs compared to current 

funding levels. That would mean that two out of every three dollars the Forest Service gets from 

Congress as part of its appropriated budget will be spent on fire programs. 

Question 2: Chief Tidwell, I see the beginnings of a concerning movement in this country to 

sell off our public lands to the highest bidder. The president's budget either cuts, guts, or 

eliminates funding for programs that benefit rural economies, improve forest health, restore 

roads and trails, manage habitats, and increase access to our public lands. 

When people can't harvest trees and manage forests, travel down a forest service road, or hike on 

a public trail through a national forest, it only serves to fuel the fire for the minority of voices 

that want to sell off public lands. It seems pretty clear to me that this budget is an attempt to 

hamstring the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies to the point where they 

can no longer manage their lands effectively. 

Can you outline your views about the responsibility that the Forest Service and the new 

administration have to ensure the public has access to our nation's treasures -- our public 

lands? 

Answer: The Forest Service is committed to serving the public and providing access to public 

lands. The agency provides a vast array of recreational opportunities to millions of Americans, 

including activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking. These outdoor opportunities 

provide experiences that build connections between the public and their Federal lands that 

translate into additional opportunities for access, including volunteer contribution, involvement 

in collaborative conservation, and community engagement in land management. 

The FY 2018 budget request proposes $252,880,000 to focus on priority recreation projects and 

activities, including simplifying the permit process to make it easier for the public to access 

Forest Service lands, and providing volunteer and work opportunities for youth and veterans. 

7 
52 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15, 2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Question 3: The Forest Legacy program is designed to keep private and state forestlands intact, 

maintaining a working landscape that supplies forest products, supports wildlife habitat, soil and 

watershed protection, aesthetics and recreation. If these working forests are carved up and sold 

off, rural communities lose significant assets. The administration's FY18 budget proposal 

completely defunds the For est Legacy Program, the primary vehicle for keeping forest lands 

intact. In Oregon, Forest Legacy Funds will protect the East Moraine of Wallowa Lake, a 

geologic and natural resource treasure highly valued by the people of the community and 

visitors. 

I'm sure you're aware the country's national forests provide much-needed revenue for rural 

communities through timber products and outdoor recreation activities. In fact, nationally 

outdoor recreation generates $887 billion in consumer spending every year, providing a huge 

boost to our economy. How does defunding this program help ensm·e healthy, wellmanaged, forests and rural economies? 

Answer: The FY 2018 President's budget reduces funding to focus resources on maintaining 

existing national forests and grasslands. The Forest Service will maintain its responsibility to 

execute and monitor Forest Legacy projects funded to date, including 20 projects enacted 

through FY 2017 funding. The FY 2018 budget will require greater shared stewardship of the 

land between the Forest Service and State and local communities to achieve our work. 

Question 4: Despite such a successful track record, the administration's FY18 budget also totally 

defunds the Legacy Roads and Trails program, which is celebrating its I 0-year anniversary this 

year. The program tackles deferred maintenance projects across the country through 

collaboration and successfully leveraging non-federal funds. In its 10 years, the program has 

created or maintained 800-1,200 jobs per year, fixed 5,020 miles of trails, decommissioned 7,053 

miles of unneeded roads, and reduced annual road maintenance costs by $3.5 million per year. 

How does completely eliminating a program with such clear and measured benefits for 

rural America and for the nation's forests and infrastructure mesh with the 

administration's stated desire to "put people back to work"? 

Answer: The Forest Service remains committed to supporting rural infrastructure needs and job 

creation. The Legacy Roads and Trails program has provided benefits to rural America. The 

Forest Service can do the same type of work within the existing Trails and Roads programs. The 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance program will focus on managing existing infrastructure 

and maintaining public safety. 

Questions from Senator Debbie Stabenow 

Question 1: At hearings in this Committee, and in the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Committee, where I serve as Ranking Member, we are constantly talking about the need for the 

8 
53 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15, 2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Forest Service to increase the pace and scale of national forest restoration. If you had to name 

the biggest impediment to accomplishing more restoration, would that impediment be a lack of 

resources? Yes or no? 

Answer: Yes. The shift in resources to firefighting activities, from about 16 percent of the 

budget in 1995 to over half our budget today, has had an outsized effect on our capacity and 

ability to get more restoration work done on the ground. To mitigate this effect, the agency has 

increased the pace and scale of restoration by 23 percent since 2011 (as measured by acres 

treated) by taking a number of actions, including expanding collaborative partnerships, 

implementing key Farm Bill authorities such as Good Neighbor authority, expanding 

stewardship contracting, and working to improve program integration in planning and budgeting. 

Question 2: The President's budget for Fiscal Year 2018 calls for a zeroing out of the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. In contrast, the previous President's 

budget for Fiscal Year 2017 called for doubling the size of the program, from a $40 million 

authorization, to an $80 million authorization, so the Forest Service could fund up to lO 

additional projects. What change in circumstances warrants this abrupt about face? Particularly 

for a program the agency called "successful" and wanted to expand some 15 months ago? 

Answer: Through its community-driven approach to restoration and shared stewardship for 

multiple benefits, CFLRP has taught us important lessons about how to work collaboratively at 

the landscape-scale to achieve forest restoration goals and build sustainable, thriving rural 

communities. Across the country, the 23 CFLRP collaboratives are turning their restoration 

vision into action on the ground-- growing rural economies, supporting healthy forests and 

watersheds, and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. 

The President's budget supports this type of collaborative, landscape-scale restoration on 

National Forest System lands, but would aim to achieve that work more efficiently by 

eliminating the separate CFLRP budget line item and funding. Support for collaborative forest 

management and landscape-scale restoration strategies would continue through our other 

programs, and we will continue to engage diverse communities and partners outside of the 

agency. Funding levels will be assessed by reviewing criteria associated with project need, 

capacity, past performance, and other factors. 

Question 3: While there is not a formal line item in the budget for the program, the Forest 

Service's Good Neighbor Forestry program is mentioned in the budget for Fiscal Year 2018 as a 

tool to help the Service meet its goal of selling 3.2 billion board feet of timber. As you know, we 

authorized this program in the 2014 Farm Bill. Can you please give us an update on Good 

Neighbor? How is the program progressing and how is the federal relationship with your state 

and private partners? 

Answer: The Good Neighbor authority allows the Forest Service to enter into cooperative 

agreements or contracts with States and Puerto Rico to allow them to perform watershed 

9 
54 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

restoration and forest management services on Federal and non-Federal lands. Good Neighbor 

agreements have resulted in improved performance within the forest restoration portfolio of 

work, which directly affects the health of our Nation's forests and grasslands. They also allow us 

to leverage capacity with State and private partners to meet timber targets and Forest Plan goals. 

As of June 26, 2017, a total of 95 agreements in 29 States have been executed with the Forest 

Service to perform a variety of restoration services. 

Master Agreements establish a framework for the State-FS collaborative relationship with future 

projects identified in Supplemental Project Agreements. Master Agreements have been executed 

in 24 States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Master 

agreements in Idaho, South Dakota, and Wyoming are each entered into with two Forest Service 

Regions. 

Supplemental Project Agreements have been executed in Alaska, Alabama (3), Arizona, 

California (2), Colorado (8), Idaho ( 4), Indiana (2), Kentucky (3), Louisiana, Michigan (3), 

Minnesota (2), New Hampshire (2), North Carolina, Oregon (11), Tennessee, Vermont, 

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (2). These projects achieve a variety of objectives, 

including hazardous fuels reduction, timber harvest, forest restoration, and wildlife habitat 

improvement. 

Stand-alone project agreements have been executed in Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, 

Montana (2), Nevada (2), Pennsylvania, and Utah (11). These projects also achieve diverse 

objectives, including hazardous fuels reduction, removal of insect-killed trees, watershed 

restoration, and wildlife habitat monitoring and improvement. 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question 1: The USFS budget called for zeroing out the funding for the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). As you know, one of the premier CFLRP projects is 

the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI). This effort to treat and reduce the fire hazard on 2.4 

million acres of forest in Arizona is critical to protect important watersheds, rural communities, 

recreation, and wildlife resources. While the pace of restoration in 4FRI has not sufficient to 

meet the needed goals, the success of the project remains a top priority for the state and for me. 

Can you confirm that despite the proposal to zero out CFLRP funding, the success of 4FRI 

remains a top USFS priority? 

Answer: Yes, the Forest Service will continue to promote collaborative forest management and 

landscape scale restoration strategies within our other programs. The agency can work 

collaboratively on projects without a separate CFLR program through allocating resources from 

other budget line items. Funding levels will be assessed by reviewing criteria associated with 

10 
55 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

project need, capacity, past performance, and other factors. We will continue to engage diverse 

communities and partners outside of the agency. 

Question 2: There has been a focus on restoring forests in Arizona at many levels ofUSFS 

leadership, however the Forest Manual and supplements are not optimized to deal with removing 

low-value timber products from USFS lands. Would you support a program to review the 

applicability of current USFS contracting policies to restoration in low-value timber areas? 

Answer: Yes, the agency supports pursuing actions that will give us additional flexibility to 

accomplish needed restoration work. 

Question 3: In your answer to Senator Franken's questions, you highlighted that investments in 

hazardous fuels reduction produces a three to nine-fold return in reduced wildfire cost reduction. 

Can you please provide the studies you cited and describe how those rates of return may be 

realized in forest such as Arizona with very high density of! ow-value timber and potentially 

high wildfire costs? 

Answer: In 2014, the Forest Service, aiVH!;>•JU<' 

Conservancy, issued a report entitled, 

which included the following conclusions: 

• The economic benefits of landscape-scale fuel-reduction treatments far outweigh the 

costs of wildfire. 

• The economic benefits of fuel treatments may be three or more times the costs. 

• The avoided losses, in terms of both costs and lost income opportunities, include the 

value of structures saved from wildfire and the costs of fire suppression and post-fire 

restoration, as well as potential revenue from carbon sequestration, merchantable timber 

and biomass that could be used for energy. 

• The study showed that the modeled fuel-treatments scenario reduced the size of each of 

the five fires by 30 to 76 percent, or a total reduction in size of approximately 41 percent. 

• The study estimated a range of benefit-cost ratio values from low to high, with the 

benefit-cost ratios for the fuel treatments ranging from !.9: l to 3.3: 1. 

• Although achieving such benefits requires a significant increase in funding to achieve the 

appropriate pace and scale of fuel treatments, the long-term cost savings far exceed the 

costs of the initial investment. 

There have been a number of other site-specific studies about the cost and benefits of hazardous 

fuels treatments. The benefits of hazardous fuels treatments fall into four broad categories: I) 

Economic value of forest products that are removed such as saw logs, wood chips, and biomass; 

2) Wildfire suppression costs avoided because of the reduced hazardous fuel; 3) The value of 

other market and non-market benefits of the hazardous fuel treatment, such as improved wildlife 

habitat, improved recreation opportunities, and improved watershed functions; and 4) Other 

avoided costs related to the impact of wildfire include homes that did not burn, administrative 

sites and infrastructure not damaged, forest products not consumed or devalued, municipal water 

11 
56 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15, 2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

sources not silted, recreation opportunities not devalued, etc. Of course, the lives of citizens and 

firefighters are priceless. 

Other studies that demonstrate the economic value of fuel reduction treatments include: 

• Mokelumne Watershed Avoided Cost Analysis, http://www.sierranevada.ca.lRlv/ourwork/mokelumne-watershed-analvsis 

• Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Restoration-Based Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Treatments vs. No Treatment, 

http://cdm 1 7l92.contentdm.oclc.org/digitallcollection/p 17192colll/id/265/recll 

• Economic Impacts of Wildfire, https://fireadaptednetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/economic costs of wildfires.pdf 

• Fuels Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Cost Merritt Island National Wildlife 

May20l2, 

e _l.kn.9rt. pdf 

• Review of Economic Benefits from Fuel Reduction Treatments in the Fire Prone Forests 

of the Southwestern United States, 

Question 4: Senator McCain and I sent you a letter on August 1 Otl', 2016 requesting you to 

respond the Town of Tusayan's request to re-engage on their premature rejection for a road 

easement in the Kaibab National Forest. I understand that the town has not received a response 

and would like you to provide me a timeline for the USFS to respond to the Town's request. 

Answer: The Kaibab National Forest is committed to working with the Town of Tusayan and 

would certainly be open to a new proposal for a road easement that addresses concerns discussed 

in the letter. The Forest Service did not respond in writing to the Town Manager, but instead had 

a meeting with the Town Manager on October 28, 2016. The Forest has not yet received a new 

proposal. 

Question 5 I am concerned about the pace of completing the NEPA process for grazing 

allotment renewals. In one allotment on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the NEPA 

process has been dragging on for years. What can the USFS do to speed up the process of 

completing the NEP A compliance for grazing permits? 

Answer: The Apache-Sitgreaves, like most other forests and grasslands, has focused their 

efforts on grazing administration to ensure the range documentation and monitoring meets Forest 

Plan standards. Meeting standards is an important component of our ability to withstand legal 

challenges and keep grazing permittees on the range into the future. 

Our current range NEPA efforts are concentrating on allotments that have never been through the 

NEPA process. Once these areas are completed, we will work on NEPA projects where 

permittees are requesting updates to their current Allotment Management Plans. 

12 
57 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15, 2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

One effort under way to speed up the process on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is 

grouping similar allotments under one NEP A analysis. 

Question 6: I understand that there is a Very Large Air Tanker operating out of Marana, 

Arizona by Global Super Tanker (GST) on an interim approval from the Interagency Airtanker 

Board (IAB). The interim approval was to allow for the collection of data needed to process their 

certification application. 

a) Will you please provide me with the data that the IAB is still awaiting from GST? 

Answer: GST provided the requested data during the week of June 19th. 

b) Will you please provide me with the rationale for the payload capacity range in the most 

recent aerial tanker Request for Proposal? 

Answer: A protest has been filed with the GAO regarding the Call When Needed Large 

Airtanker Basic Ordering Agreement solicitation. Procurement integrity requirements limit the 

information we are able to provide at this time. 

Questions from Senator AI Franken 

Question 1: Forests across my state-- urban and rural, public and private-are threatened by 

new diseases and invasive species. One particularly pressing example is the emerald ash borer. 

am concerned that the proposed 48% cut to State and Private forestry programs and the 

elimination of the Urban and Community forest program would seriously hamper our response to 

threats like the ash borer. 

How will the US Forest Service meet challenges like the emerald ash borer given the constraints 

proposed in the President's budget? 

Answer: The FY 2018 budget allows the Forest Service to focus on the maintenance of National 

Forest System lands. Through the Forest Health Management line item, the agency will continue 

to survey, monitor, and work with landowners to develop appropriate invasive species 

treatments. 

Question 2: As we've discussed in the past, there are the 86,000 acres of Minnesota School 

Trust lands inside the Superior National Forest's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. 

That means those lands are not generating income for the School Land Tmst. Numerous 

stakeholders came together a few years ago to work out a compromise that would solve this 

problem, involving a land exchange and purchase. There is now a "Plan B" proposal to use Land 

13 
58 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

and Water Conservation (LWCF) funds to facilitate the purchase of 50,000 acres of valuable 

forestland from a willing private seller that can be exchanged for Minnesota School Trust Lands. 

If Congress includes sufficient funding for LWCF in Fiscal Year 2018, will you commit to 

working with me and stakeholders in Minnesota to get this done'> Also will you provide the 

Committee with a list of land acquisition projects that the USFS would recommend receiving 

funding in Fiscal Year 2018? 

Answer: The Forest Service is committed to working with you and the Minnesota delegation to 

implement a solution that allows the State to exchange and/or sell its school trust lands within the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and in turn acquire replacement lands outside of the 

national forest. Any solution to this problem involving purchase of the school trust lands with 

LWCF will be a multi-year effort. 

The Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee Clerk is working with the Office of 

Management and Budget, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service to transmit the 

FY 2018 project lists. Your office will be notified when transmittal occurs. 

Questions from Senator Joe Manchin III 

Question 1: Regarding timber harvest in national forests, the forest products budget line item is 

flat, meaning that the FY20 18 target of timber is the same as the FY 2017. The budget proposal 

states that 50% of our Nation's forests are privately owned and over 90% of the timber harvested 

comes from private lands. So about 3% of that national timber forest ends up being from our 

national forests. But that 3% supports about 43,000 jobs. In West Virginia, like our coal 

communities, our timber industry could certainly use some help. An overall reduction in timber 

production in recent years has led to lower activity in this industry and economic uncertainty for 

our forested communities. The fact that the Secure Rural Schools program has not been 

reauthorized is certainly compounding that uncertainty. Our division of forestry is interested in 

finding ways to improve our by economy by maintaining and attracting new primary and 

secondary forest product manufacturers, but also doing so in a sustainable way that recognizes 

the importance that our forests can play in carbon dioxide reduction. 

What do you see as the forest service's role in supporting our timber industry and do you believe 

this budget supports that kind of policy goal? 

Answer: The President's FY 2018 budget request will support a robust Forest Products 

program. This is a key part of the agency's integrated restoration efforts to create healthy, 

resilient landscapes and communities while also supporting rural economies though associated 

jobs and economic benefits. We recognize the importance of timber sales to both local 

economies and restoration, and believe supporting local economies goes hand-in-hand with 

14 
59 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

restoration. We are taking many actions to support jobs and to accelerate our restoration efforts, 

including expanding collaborative partnerships, fully utilizing the authorities in the 2014 Farm 

Bill, and making greater use of stewardship contracting. These actions, and others, helped us 

increase restoration by 23 percent since 2011 while also increasing timber outputs. ln West 

Virginia, the Monongahela National Forest is on track to produce 11.1 million board feet of 

timber in FY 2017, increasing their output from 7.3 million board feet in FY 2016. 

Question 2: The Secure Rural Schools program is currently expired. The last payments were 

made in April of20 16 for FY2015. I have received numerous letters from school 

superintendents, teachers, and business managers from counties that traditionally receive SRS 

funds. Earlier this year, I received a letter from the Finance Director of the Pocahontas County 

Board of Education, who is grappling with difficult decisions needing to be made from the 

reduction in SRS funds. This year Pocahontas County received $72,000 in SRS, a sharp 

reduction from prior year amounts $750,000. Right now, Pocahontas County is in a budget 

shortfall of $300,000. Already, through attrition or forced reductions these schools have lost 14 

staff. 

I recently received another letter notifying me that Hardy County Schools received the counties 

payment for FY20 17 in the amount of $7,265.65. They were appreciative, however they fairly 

pointed out that Hardy County has previously received approximately $65,000 per year of SRS 

funds. That's a decrease of$57,735 or 88 percent. 

This is in an area of our state that has also experience a steep decline in coal production and the 

resulting decline in jobs and economic activity. I, along with several of my colleaf,>ues in this 

committee introduced S. 1027 a bill to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of2000. 

Do you have any policy recommendations for Congress regarding SRS? 

Chief Tidwell, will you commit to working with me and my colleagues to address this important 

issue? 

Answer: The Forest Service is committed to working with Congress to address this issue. 

Question 3: Chief Tidwell, you and I have corresponded about the unique challenges facing 

West Virginia's forests. West Virginia is the third most heavily forested state in the nation, with 

most of the forests being private landholdings. The 2014 Farm Bill directed the State Foresters to 

take a comprehensive look at forests in all ownership categories across their states and develop 

State Forest Action plans. These State Forest Action Plans identify priorities in order to direct 

limited resources to where they are most needed. The 2015 West Virginia State Action Plan 

identified the following priorities: (a) conserve and manage working forest landscapes for 

multiple uses; (b) protect forests from threats; and (c) enhance public benefits from forests. The 

Forest Service previously worked with West Virginia's Division of Forestry to help achieve state 

15 
60 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

goals for enhanced forest health and habitat conservation. Specifically, the Gypsy Moth 

Working Group, the Hemlock Conservation Group and the Invasive Species Working Groups are 

working in the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) as well as other programs addressing weed 

and pest management, the fire learning network and high elevation restoration. I also understand 

you have worked with our WV State Foresters to designate the Monongahela National Forest as 

an "Insect and Disease Epidemic Area" under the 2014 Farm Bill. It's my understanding that the 

Forest Service worked collaboratively with West Virginia stakeholders to take aggressive action 

to address threats such as the gypsy moth, beech bark disease and other challenges. These efforts 

are vital to the health of our forests which provide my state of West Virginia with a wide number 

of opportunities ranging from extensive recreational use to timber harvesting; from grazing of 

livestock to mineral extraction. At least 75 tree species, more than 225 species of bird, and 60 

species offish inhabit the Monongahela. As you may know, my state has some serious budget 

challenges that our Governor and state legislature are working to address. But because of budget 

shortfalls, nearly a third of the West Virginia Division of Forestry was laid off in 2016. While 

some of those layoffs have been recalled as of March 2017, the prospect of new funding anytime 

soon is non-existent. West Virginia has benefited from successful federal-state efforts such as the 

Forest Stewardship program and the Forest Health management programs which aim to protect 

forest health in states and on private forested areas-which we have a lot of in West Virginia. I 

am concerned that this budget may reverse some of the progress our forests have made. 

Chief Tidwell, do you believe that under the FY2018 proposed budget, will the Forest Service 

have the bandwidth to be able to continue these "good neighbor" practices that currently benefit 

states like West Virginia? 

Answer: Yes, under the FY 2018 budget request, the Forest Service will continue to exercise its 

authorities under the Farm Bill, including the Good Neighbor authority and the Insect and 

Disease provision. The FY 2018 President's budget focuses resources on maintaining existing 

national forests and grasslands. This budget will require greater shared stewardship of the land 

between the Forest Service and State and local communities to achieve our work. Through the 

Forest Health Management line item, the agency will continue to survey, monitor, and work with 

landowners to develop appropriate invasive species treatments. 

Have you considered the disproportionate impacts that the budget could have on rural America? 

Answer: Decreased funding to State & Private Forestry programs will decrease the number 

and/or scale of Forest Service partnerships with Federal, State, Tribal, local, and non-profit 

entities focused on stewardship of State and private forest lands. This budget will require greater 

shared stewardship by States, communities, and private land owners to accomplish forest 

management goals. 

Question 4: Chief Tidwell, I appreciate the work you have done over time through the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund to maintain the remarkable natural resources of our national forests. to 

enhance access for hunters and anglers and hikers, and to prevent forest conversion and related 

16 
61 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

losses of jobs in the woods and outdoor recreation opportunity. The FY20 18 budget proposes no 

new land acquisition projects using LWCF Funds. In West Virginia, LWCF has been absolutely 

essential to protecting a host of iconic places, from Spruce Rocks/Seneca Knobs to the Cranberry 

Wilderness to the Cheat River and Shavers Fork, and these are not just beautiful places for us to 

shoot or fish or climb or paddle with our families-- they are lifeblood for our state's economy. I 

am particularly concerned, and honestly baffled, that your budget slashes LWCF for national 

forests to the bone, and completely eliminates the Forest Legacy Program within LWCF. As well 

as to working with all my colleagues to pass Ranking Member Cantwell's billS. 569, the Land 

and Water Conservation Authorization and Funding Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. 

Chief, can you tell us whether and how the budget considered the true cost of these cuts and the 

true price of conservation inaction, in tenns of losses to our communities and problems for your 

own management? 

Answer: The FY 2018 President's budget focuses resources on maintaining existing national 

forests and grasslands, rather than acquiring new Federal lands or interests in lands. By focusing 

our limited resources on maintaining existing Federal lands, we anticipate greater shared 

stewardship between Federal, State, and local governments to accomplish shared land 

management objectives in lands outside the National Forest System. 

Question 5: In June 2016, West Virginia experienced a devastating, once-in-a-thousand year 

t1ood. l visited these communities immediately after the event took place and saw devastation, 

including entire homes that were washed away, and bridges and roads damaged to the point that 

they are not reparable. These communities are still continuing their recovery efforts and will be 

doing so for some time. Several important federal assets and properties were damaged during 

this event, including at the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia which experienced 

sustained damage to roads leading to access points and several popular access points. In West 

Virginia, we tend to look out for our neighbor and help them when we can. We also have plenty 

of hardworking men and women who are looking for work. As t1ood recovery efforts begin, I 

have been very pleased to see that local workers and contractors are being prioritized for these 

restoration efforts. They know the land and they are committed to West Virginia. That is the 

West Virginia way. 

Chief Tidwell when possible, do you agree that a local workforce should be prioritized for use in 

infrastructure repair projects, such as t1ood recovery efforts or deferred maintenance backlogs at 

Forest Service land? 

Answer: Yes, where possible, the agency strives to utilize small businesses and a local 

workforce to provide an economic benefit to local communities. 

Question 6: In West Virginia, we are blessed to have the Monongahela National Forest. 

Established in 1920, the Monongahela National Forest occupies more than 919,000 acres in 10 

counties in the highlands of the State. In addition to offering breathtaking views, the 

17 
62 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Monongahela National Forest is truly a working forest as it is utilized in its multi-use platform 

and provides timber, water, grazing, minerals as well as numerous recreational opportunities. 

Fire borrowing is an issue that needs to be addressed. This is important for my state, because 

when catastrophic fires occur in the West the Forest Service pays for the cost by drawing from 

the discretionary appropriations, which means less money to go to places like the Monongahela 

National Forest. In West Virginia we are not immune to wildfire; in 2014 West Virginia 

experienced 953 fires, burning 13,060 acres. However, fires in the Eastern part of the United 

States pale in comparison to Western states, which have increasingly grown in size, intensity and 

expense. Wildland Fire Management accounts for 52.7% of Forest Service's total discretionary 

budget. The Administration has proposed significantly lower overall funds for fighting wildfire 

(Wildland Fire Management Account and the Federal Land Assistance, Management and 

Enhancement Act account). The Administration has proposed fairly significant cuts for the 

Forest Service. Furthermore the Administration proposes funds for fighting wildfire that are 

significantly lower than amounts Congress Appropriated. The practice of"fire borrowing" refers 

to instances where the Forest Service will "borrow" funds from non-fire accounts to fight 

wildfires when wildfire accounts are diminished. 

Under the proposed budget, where will the funds come from if the Forest Service is forced to 

borrow funds from non-fire accounts? 

Answer: The Administration has not proposed to significantly reduce fire funding. The FY 

2018 President's Budget fully funds the 1 0-year average for fire suppression and funds all base 8 

costs (the first eight hours per day worked by a firefighter) from Preparedness, a shift from 

Suppression where a portion of base 8 costs have been charged since 2004. The Forest Service 

and the Department of the Interior are now using the same business rules. 

If appropriated funds to cover the cost of wildfire suppression are expended and the agency must 

borrow funds from non-fire programs, those funds will first come from lower priority projects. 

What kind of impact will this have to land management operations that are suffering from 

continually decreasing funding? 

Answer: Transferring funds to cover the costs of wildfire suppression can be disruptive to other 

programs and services. These transfers sometimes stop critical work in progress, cause 

uncertainty in planning, and impact the timing of future projects. However, these transfers do not 

occur every year and Congress has generally repaid fire transfers so that borrowed funds are 

returned to the non-fire programs. The more impactful issue is that the 10-year rolling average 

continues to increase each year, and the overall Forest Service budget has been relatively flat, 

resulting in increased fire suppression appropriations and a commensurate reduction in non-fire 

programs. This does happen every year and the long-term consequence is that a majority of our 

human and financial resources are now allocated to wildland fire suppression and preparedness, 

with the number ofNational Forest System personnel down 39 percent from 1998 to 2016. 

18 
63 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Questions from Senator Angus S. King, Jr. 

Question 1: The President's budget proposes a nearly 50 percent cut to State and Private 

Forestry programs, and completely eliminates a few important forest conservation programs like 

the Forest Legacy Program and the Community Forest Program, both of which are proving to be 

very successful in Maine. Our many private forest landowners are good conservation stewards, 

and the state and private forestry programs provide much needed support. 

The justification your budget provides for these cuts is that the Administration will use those 

funds instead to focus solely on maintenance of the national jbrests- the majority of which are 

in the West. So you are essentially proposing a substantial funding shift away from private 

forests with most of them (80 percent) in the east. Private forests support jobs in our rural 

communities, as well as important public benefits like water protection, public access to 

recreation, fish and wildlife habitat protection. 

Why are these successful conservation programs that benefit Maine being cut? 

Answer: The FY 2018 President's budget reduces funding to focus resources on maintaining 

existing national forests and grasslands, including the elimination of the Community Forest and 

Forest Legacy Programs. This budget will require greater shared stewardship of the land between 

the Forest Service and State and local communities to achieve our work. 

Question 2: Have you analyzed the impact on our private forests from these budget cuts and 

program eliminations? 

Answer: The Forest Service has not done an analysis of impacts on communities of the 

proposed elimination of funding. Decreased funding to State & Private Forestry programs will 

decrease the number and/or scale of Forest Service partnerships with Federal, State, Tribal, local, 

and non-profit entities focused on stewardship of State and private forest lands. This budget will 

require greater shared stewardship by States, communities, and private landowners to accomplish 

valuable forest management goals. 

Question 3: Where do you see investment in marketing and research on forest products like 

Cross Laminated Timber headed in the future for the Forest Service? 

Answer: There remains quite a bit of work to do both in production development and end-use 

market stimulation. Focusing on these dual dimensions has helped the Forest Service trigger the 

now very active growth of the cross laminated wood sector. Continuing these efforts will enable 

movement into the mainstream of the construction industry. Ongoing research investments are 

being made to support the development and understanding of material property values for U.S. 

species, structural design requirements, seismic and fire performance, durability and protection, 

19 
64 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15, 2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

life cycle assessment, and adhesive performance. These research efforts will further support the 

increasing market for mass timber products, including cross laminated timber. 

Question 4: What is your view of how Forest Service research and University forest research 

programs can best interact to address regional and national issues of importance to rural forest 

communities and economies, and specifically the Northeastern communities dependent upon 

privately owned forestland? 

Answer: The Research Stations and university forestry programs within a Region often have 

similar forest health concerns and routinely collaborate on data collection, data analysis, and 

joint publications. This results is a leveraging of expertise and/or funding, and avoidance of 

duplicating efforts. This type of collaborative research and mutual support was a significant 

factor in the establishment of Forest Service research units near land-grant universities. 

Product research has both national and regional needs and university scientists often extend 

product research developed nationally to the local level. The Forest Service plays a vital role in 

organizing and directing much of this research by providing financial and technical support to 

university projects. 

Question 5: What is the role of Forest Service research with respect to stimulating national 

markets for mass timber construction and more specifically the northeastern regional market, 

noting that the closest large producers of structural softwood lumber are located in Mainery 

Answer: The agency has been successful in promoting mass timber using a wide range of tools, 

such as the Wood Innovations grant program and providing training opportunities to thousands 

of architects and engineers. The Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) is a significant contributor to 

efforts to stimulate national markets for mass timber. 

The agency recognizes that national markets for new and innovative wood products cannot be 

developed without recognition of the materials and building systems in U.S building codes and 

standards. In order to integrate materials such as cross-laminated timber into U.S. markets, 

research is needed to establish U.S. building code requirements and/or demonstrate compliance 

with existing standards. FPL works with industry and universities to complete code-required 

research in material property values for U.S. species, fundamental structural design 

requirements, seismic and fire performance, durability and protection, and adhesive performance. 

Questions from Senator Catherine Cortez Mas to 

Question 1: In total, the Forest Service's FY2017 discretionary appropriations were 12% lower 

than the FY2016 appropriations. For FY2018, the Administration has requested $4.732 billion, 

which is 15% less than FY2017 enacted level. How will these declining budgets affect the Forest 

20 
65 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Service's ability to address and improve forest management, wildfire, cutting-edge research, 

state collaboration, and educating and training youth? 

Answer: As the costs for fire suppression continue to grow, the Forest Service must shift 

resources from non-fire to fire activities. This affects the agency's ability to carry out other core 

mission goals and leads to the need to forego opportunities to complete vital restoration work 

and meet public expectations for services. Those non-fire activities are often those that improve 

the health and resilience of forests and mitigate the potential for wildland fire in future years. 

Question 3: Under President Trump's budget, cuts to the Forest Service would impact state and 

private forestry budgets. In fact, the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) could experience a 40% 

funding loss, which would have a huge impact on wildland fire suppression and fire prevention. 

Can you elaborate on those potential impacts and concerns? 

Answer: Decreased funding to State & Private Forestry programs will decrease the number 

and/or scale of Forest Service partnerships with Federal, State, Tribal, local, and non-profit 

entities focused on stewardship of State and private forest lands. This budget will require greater 

shared stewardship by States, communities, and private landowners to accomplish forest 

management goals. 

Question 4: The Forest Service and Department of the Interior are projecting a very strong 

probability for Northern Nevada to see wild and forest fires this summer, particularly in July and 

August. In what ways is the Forest Service coordinating with state firefighters7 

Answer: Through the State Fire Assistance (SFA) program, the Forest Service provides 

financial assistance to State and local response agencies for the prevention, mitigation, control, 

and suppression of wildfires on non-F ederallands. The program emphasizes pre-fire planning 

and hazardous fuels mitigation near communities at risk. In addition, training funded by SFA 

provides effective and safer initial response to wildfire. 

Question 5: What are ways in which the Forest Service can improve coordination between other 

agencies and state partners? 

Answer: The National Wildland Fire Cohesive Management Strategy emphasizes collaboration 

and coordination across jurisdictional boundaries. There are dozens of examples around the 

country where the Forest Service is working closely with our State and local partners to reduce 

wildfire risk. These include the Blue Mountains in Oregon, the Greater Okefenokee area in 

Georgia and Florida, the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project in Arizona and the Mashpee 

Collaborative in Massachusetts, to name a few. We also use the provisions in the Good Neighbor 

authority on a regular basis to work across boundaries with partners. 

Question 6: With the proposed cuts in the budget, there will be less money for staff to address 

more extreme wildfire seasons and develop better interagency coordination. Less seasonal 

21 
66 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

firefighters would be hired to combat fires on the ground. How will the Forest Service address 

those concerns if the Administration's budget is implemented by Congress? 

Answer: The budget has proposed funding suppression at the full 1 0-year average amount in 

FY 2018. The Forest Service has worked to appropriately allocate firefighting resources and 

improve risk management strategies to use those resources safely and efficiently. Over the last 

few decades, wildland fire suppression costs have increased as fire seasons have grown longer 

and the frequency, size, and severity of wildland fires has increased; therefore, an increasing 

proportion of the agency's resources are spent to provide the firefighters, aircraft, and other 

assets necessary to protect lives, property, and natural resources from catastrophic wildfires. 

Question 7: The President's budget does not include an interagency budget proposal to change 

the budgeting framework for funding wildfire suppression proposed in past budgets by the 

Obama Administration. What will the Forest Service do to develop a responsible approach that 

addresses risk management, cost containment, and state and local government partners to ensure 

adequate funds are available for wildfire suppression? 

Answer: The Administration is reviewing potential administrative actions and legislative 

options to address longstanding wildland fire funding concerns. Principals at USDA and DOI 

will work with the Office of Management and Budget to develop a responsible approach that 

addresses risk management, performance accountability, cost containment, and the role of State 

and local government partners in ensuring adequate funds are available for wildfire suppression 

without undue disruption to land management operations. 

Question 8: Under current funding, does the Forest Service have enough resources and staff to 

adequately keep our trails and roads safe for visitors that are an integral part of Nevada's and 

other states' local tourism economies? 

Answer: This level of funding is sufficient to maintain a workforce to implement the most 

critical work on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service will prioritize road and trail 

work to manage existing infrastructure and maintain public safety and needed access, and defer 

lower priority projects as needed. 

Question 9: CmTently, 80% of trail maintenance in Nevada is accomplished by volunteers 

through organizations such as Friends of Nevada Wilderness and Great Basin Institute. While 

these partnerships are crucial for maintenance and we appreciate their incredible work, there is 

widespread concerns that with further cuts, the responsibility of all maintenance will fall on the 

shoulders on these organizations. Can you address some of those concerns? 

Answer: This level of funding is sufficient to maintain a workforce to implement the most 

critical work on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service will prioritize road and trail 

work to manage existing infrastructure and maintain public safety and needed access, and defer 

lower priority projects as needed. 

22 
67 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 15,2017 Hearing 

The President's Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service for FY2018 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Chief Thomas Tidwell 

Question lO: In Nevada, we utilize the Forest Legacy Program and it is unfunded in the 

President's budget. This program is critical for protecting working forest lands from being sold 

off for development purposes. lt provides funding for conservation easements that pays the 

landowner for the development rights, while saving the productive capacity of the land. Why was 

this program not funded? 

Answer: The FY 2018 President's budget reduces funding to focus resources on maintaining 

existing national forests and grasslands, including not funding the Forest Legacy Program. The 

Forest Service will maintain its responsibility to execute and monitor Forest Legacy projects 

funded to date, including 20 projects enacted through FY 2017 funding. The FY 2018 budget 

will require greater shared stewardship of the land between the Forest Service and State and local 

communities to achieve our work. 

23 
68 

• Tlw I Ltynun l ir(' in Colorado burned nl\,oC>o ,Kres, 

dcstroyL·d ll1\lrc thau iloo stnlctures, ,md dcpositcJ more 

than 1 million cnhic yards of ~edinwnt into :-.tnnnia 

Reservoir- a prinnry drinking wJtcr Sl>nrcc for the 

lkrmcr at:tgrzming..:,)St of more th.m Sl)O million 

The Nature 

Conserv-ancy 

Pmtac!mgnature. PraseiVinglife~ 
69 

FIGURE ES-1. Fire Hazard in the Upper lv1okf'iumne VVatcfshcd 

ln FchruJry 101.2, the Sierra NcvJdJ Conservanq: The N;Jture 

{'"'"'"~'''"·" and the U.S. Forest Service convened a diverse 

staKertotctcrs to consider '"'her her an economic case 

made l~1r incre;-Jscd investment in fuel reduction in 

the upper ~{okdumne w;ucrshed. This included bud 

Forest Service, Bureau 

Sierra 

~viuni-.·ipal Utiliry 

(C,11iComia Department of\V,\tt'r Resources, Calitl)fni;J 

Fire Protection and county govern 

'\i-'e quamif1ed the treatments, 

those elements to vvhich a dollar value can readily be 

such as homes, infrastnKture, timher, biomass energy, 

of fire on wildlif(~ habitat, rccreJtioJL tourism, ;tnd public ht'.llth 

and cultural sites_ Thus, in our conclusions 

t1tt1l1"t'\vildfircsantl 

C\St' for act !on. 
70 

Figure ES·2 i ligh-illtcns<ty Wildfire rw- ;,1nd Post· TreatMents 

Fuel treatments can significantly reduce the size and sever" 

ity of wildfires. Proactive forest man:1gcment can si~niflcant!y 

fire hehavior fire size and rate of 

fuel "tft'<ltnlt'ntS 

• The cconom k benefits of modeled fuel tr·eatmcnts arc 

the costs or fire suppression :md post- fin:: restoration, as ""ell 

Figure ES·3. Total Costs and Benefits for Fuci-T1calments Scenario 

ratio of approximately 1.9:1 

There are many beneficiaries from increased fuel treat~ 

mcnts, especially taxpayers. 'l'he economic benefits of fuel 

treatments accrue to a \vide oi bndowners, <Jnd 

(and 

timher O\vncrs, ;md water electric utiliccnnmn"OIL the t.:OStS o( fuel UCattnCntS art' 
71 

$250M 

$200M 

$150M 

$100M 

$SOM 

$0 

LowBcndtts H:g!tBcndits 

Figure ES·4. Fuel Treatments Beneficiaries 
72 

Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Restoration-Based 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Treatments vs. No Treatment 

Progress Report #1 

June 13, 2003 

G. B. Snider 

D. B. Wood 

P. J. Daugherty 
73 

Fact Sheet: Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Restoration-Based Hazardous 

Fuel Reduction Treatments vs. No Treatment 

By: G.B. Snider, D.B. Wood, and P.J. Daugherty 

Northern Arizona University/School of Forestry 

This study compares the cost of restoring forests to no taking action in ponderosa pine and 

dry mixed conifer forests in Arizona and New Mexico. 

The preliminary analysis shows that it is cost effective to spend up to $505/acre to restore 

forests to prevent catastrophic fire and avoid associated fire suppression costs. This value is 

a conservative estimate based on a comparison of the cost of restoration versus the cost of 

suppression, emergency rehabilitation and lost timber production. 

The analysis represents only a partial measure of the economic damage caused by 

catastrophic, unnatural fires. The above value ($505/acre) does not include the cost of: 

damage to water supplies, lost recreation revenue, lost wages, destroyed property, reduced 

property values and associated decreased tax revenues; loss of scenic value and wildlife 

habitat. If all the associated costs of damage caused by unnatural wildfire are considered it is 

rational to spend even more to restore forests. 

The analysis also assumes no return from the wood produced by the restoration treatment. In 

places where restoration by-products produce a return, the total amount that could be spent 

on restoration increase commensurately. 

Adding insured property loss, long-term rehabilitation and reforestation costs to direct 

suppression costs, conservatively places the cost of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire at approximately 

$300 million. Adding the additional costs of this one fire to the analysis raises the amount 

that could economically spent on restoration to $582/acre. 

Each year that no action is taken to restore acres that are at highest risk for unnatural fire 

(Condition Class 3) the problem becomes worse. Fuels resulting from beetle outbreaks are 

contributing to the hazardous fuels build up. ln the nine western states with significant acres 

of ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests there are 12,047,672 acres of Condition 

Class 3 lands. Based on this analysis we can invest $6 billion dollars to restore these acres or 

we could watch an equivalent amount go up in smoke as we attempt to suppress fires. 
74 

Analysis of Costs and Benefits Of Restoration-Based Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Treatments vs. No Treatment- Progress Report #1 

G.B. Snider, D.B. Wood, and P.J. Daugherty 06-13-03 

Introduction 

This progress report presents preliminary results of an economic analysis comparing 

restoration-based fuel treatments to no treatments for areas identified at high risk for fire. 

The with and without treatment comparison focuses on ponderosa pine and dry mixed 

conifer forest ecosystems in New Mexico and Arizona. The analysis provides a 

conservative estimate of the potential economic losses due to no action. 

The results for New Mexico and Arizona indicate that restoration-based fuel treatments 

represent a rational economic choice even if one only considers direct avoided cost of 

current fires suppression activities. Society could pay up to $505 dollars per acre to treat 

the areas of high risk, and still break even in terms of investment. This investment cost is 

net of any value recovered from the restoration treatment; for example if the thinning part 

of a restoration treatment generated $200 per acre, the total break-even investment value 

rises to $700/acre. This investment break-even value does not include consideration of 

property damage and associated losses or lost ecosystem values, such as endangered 

species habitat and recreation amenity values. 

Background 

Historical practices starting with European settlers (e.g., overgrazing in the late 1800s, 

selective timber harvests, and fire suppression) have created vast areas of unhealthy 

forest ecosystems in the western United States. These practices have caused significant 

structural and functional changes in western ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer 

forests which are now at risk of ecosystem collapse (Cooper 1960, Covington and Moore 

l994a, 1994b, Covington et al. 1997, Dahms and Geils 1997). Today, society faces the 

jeopardy of losing these forests to insect outbreaks, disease, and catastrophic crown fires. 

The overly dense stand conditions, exacerbated by drought, the increased bark beetle 

mortality, and larger and more frequent stand-replacing crown fire are interconnected 

symptoms of the forest health crisis caused by past practices and perpetuated by current 

inaction. Bark beetle outbreaks are associated with overly dense forests, and the bark 

beetle mortality increases the risk of crown fire in these dense forests. The everincreasing severity and magnitude of wildfires, and the devastating outbreak of bark 

beetles in the southwest bear harsh witness to the hazardous conditions that exist over 

most of the forests in the Southwest. 

Local, state and federal agencies, as well as industry and many environmental groups 

agree that restoration activities would begin healing degraded forests and reduce the 

threat of unnatural wildfire. However, the current pace and scale of implementation 

remains inadequate to significantly reduce the risk of collapse (e.g., as evidenced by the 

Rodeo-Chedeski, Biscuit, Cerro Grande, and Hayman fires). Inadequate federal funding 
75 

for forest restoration and the reprogramming of treatment dollars to suppression activities 

perpetuates the problem. While society demands suppression of fires, it is extremely 

expensive and fails to solve the underlying problem leading to fires. When dollars are 

taken from restoration treatments and given to suppression activities, the diversion 

insures the continued need of suppression by undermining the logical approach to solving 

the wildfire problem. 

Trends and Current Conditions 

Figure l illustrates the trend that has occurred throughout ponderosa pine ecosystems. 

The top picture shows how the area appeared around the tum of the century and in terms 

of density, how it should look today. The middle picture shows the same location 

following the regeneration pulse of 1919 which resulted in the survival of many young 

trees in the absence of natural fire regime. The bottom picture shows the same area in 

1985. The trees in the dog-hair thickets (dense areas of small diameter trees) are 65 years 

old, and have grown sufficient height to constitute ladder fuels which move ground fires 

into the canopy of older trees. Analogous trends have occurred in the dry mixed conifer 

areas. 

Figures 2 and 3 present a graphical representation of the same historical trend. Figure 2 

illustrates the dramatic increase in the number of small diameter trees in Arizona and 

New Mexico forests. Figure 3 shows the percentage distribution of Arizona's ponderosa 

pine forests by density class. The average condition in 1910 was around 30 square feet 

per acre. The average today is in the 100-150 square feet per acre range and indicates a 

dramatic increase in the density of ponderosa pine forest. 

As described earlier, the disruption of the natural frequent fire regime and resulting 

increase in tree density has created unhealthy forest conditions. These forest systems are 

poised for collapse. Figure 4 illustrates the magnitude of this risk in terms of devastating 

crown fires in New Mexico. Approximately 60 percent of the ponderosa pine and dry 

mixed conifer forest types in New Mexico rate as high risk for crown fire hazard (Fiedler 

et al. 2002). As time passes these conditions are continuing to worsen. In addition to 

increasing acres burned and fire suppression costs, forests are experiencing unnatural 

irruptions of bark beetles. Figure 5 illustrates the irruption of bark beetle mortality in 

2002, and the increase in acres burned for Arizona and New Mexico. These conditions 

are not without consequence. The sharp increase in 2002 could indicate that current 

conditions have passed an ecological threshold, and acres lost to bark beetles and fire will 

remain at a new higher level without treatment. 

Figure 5 also illustrates that economic costs are on the rise. In 2002, Region 3 (Arizona 

and New Mexico) of the USDA Forest Service spent over $120 million for suppression 

and rehabilitation, and given the trend in forest conditions and a continuation of a policy 

of inaction, one would not expect any reduction in these expenditures in the future. 

2 
76 

txamole progressiOn pme pre-European tree density 

(1911), through influx of regeneration (1928), to unhealthy density (1985). Note that 

herbaceous understory had already been lost by 1911 due to excessive grazing. Photos 

are courtesy ofH.B. "Doc" Smith, Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona 

University. 

3 
77 

100 

(l) 

90 (l) 

... 00 f-' ·;;; ~ 80 "' u ..0 

.s ,., 70 r:/) ... 

(.) 

gf-< 60 

·~ § 0 50 .s 0 "0 40 '-+-< (l) 

0 >< ... (l) 30 (\) "0 ..0 .5 a 20 ;::: 

z ]() 

~ -----1999 

\ -e-]985 

\\ ---&---1966 

\~ ----1910 

'\~ 

\~ 

""'' ..... ~~ -.,.., ~ 

0 

Diameter-class (inches) 

Figure 2. Number of trees per acre by diameter class for non-reserved forestland in 

Arizona and New Mexico for inventory years 1910, 1966, 1985, and 1999. Adapted from 

Cassidy 2003. 

35 

30 

ca 25 0 

f-' 20 '-+-< 

0 

"E 15 (l) 

(.) 

... 

(l) ]() p., 

5 

0 

0 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-JOO 101- 151- 201- 251-

150 200 250 300 

Basal Area Class (square feet per acre) 

301- 351-

350 400 

Figure 3. The percent of ponderosa pine forest in each basal area class (square feet per 

acre) based on 1999 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) stand data for Arizona.1999. 

Data are from all inventory stands with a major ponderosa component. Adapted from 

Cassidy 2003. 

4 
78 

Cl>50MPH 

CI<25MPH 

4 million acres in NM 

Fi1,,>ure 4. Percent of area by crown fire hazard for short-interval, fire-adapted forest types 

of New Mexico. Types are primarily transition ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine, and dry 

mixed conifer, and comprise approximately 4 million acres. Cl refers to the crown index, 

a measure of crown fire hazard. The measure estimates the wind speed required to 

sustain a crown fire once it has reached the canopy. Adapted from Fiedler et al., 2002. 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Year 

Figure 5. Trend in acres with bark beetle mortality, acres burned, and fire suppression 

and rehabilitation costs (in toO's of2002 dollars) for Arizona and New Mexico. Graph 

based on USDA forest service data. Adapted from USDA Forest Service, 2002a. 

5 
79 

Remedy for the Forest Health Crisis 

The remedy for these unhealthy conditions requires large-scale (greater ecosystem) 

implementation of restoration-based hazardous fuel treatments that will simultaneously 

reduce the risk of crown fire and insect outbreaks, restore watershed function and 

condition, increase biological diversity, and improve socioeconomic well-being by 

promoting sustainable economic development within local communities. 

A number of studies are asking the question, how much are these treatments going to cost 

and can society afford to pay for restoration. These recent studies examine the 

economics of implementing these types of treatments (Barbour et al. 2001, Fiedler et al. 

2002, Lynch et al. 2000). In general, these studies found it difficult to justify treatment 

expenditures based on the value of the wood fiber removed by the treatments. This 

conclusion suggests that restoration must be considered an investment, and would need to 

be justified by the marginal benefits/value provided by a healthy ecosystem. However, it 

is possible we have been asking the wrong question. Perhaps the question we should be 

asking is: Can we afford to not implement restoration-based hazardousfiwl 

reduction/thinning treatment? 

Economic Analysis 

Many question society's willingness or ability to pay for restoration-based fuel treatments 

on a scale sufficient to generate the ecosystem changes necessary for effective fuel 

reduction and hazard abatement. We argue that there is increasing evidence to suggest 

that the ever increasing ecological and economic costs resulting from high-intensity, 

ecosystem-scale fires in the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests of the West far 

exceed the cost to society of proactive restoration thinning treatments. 

This economic analysis of ecological restoration answers the above question by 

comparing the costs of restoration to the costs and damages expected without restoration. 

The avoided cost analysis assumes that restoration of all high hazard areas in ponderosa 

pine and dry mixed-conifer forest, which comprise about 42 percent of these forest types 

in Arizona and New Mexico, would result in essentially eliminating large high intensity 

crown fires and the associated large expenditures and damages incurred in the recent past. 

The difference between projected fire costs and damages and the costs of restoration 

therefore represent a partial measure of the economic value of ecological restoration. Not 

considered in this analysis are: losses and damages to structures, private land value, and 

other infrastructure associated with the wildland-urban interface, and non-market values 

associated with improved ecological health These non-market values include better 

wildlife habitat, improved water quality, increased forage production, and enhanced 

recreational quality. These are widely considered positive aspects of restoration and 

therefore the values estimated in this study underestimate the total economic value of 

restoration. 

6 
80 

The Arizona and New Me"\:ico situation 

During the 10-year period from 1993-2002, an average of 443,307 acres burned each year 

in Arizona and New Mexico. Given that the number of acres in high fire hazard 

rating/fire Condition Class 3 is increasing every year, a conservative approach would 

assume that the average acres burned would continue in the future without treatment. 

During this same period, Region 3 (Arizona and New Mexico) of the USDA Forest 

Service spent an average of $377 per acre per year on fire suppression and an additional 

$22 per acre per year on emergency rehabilitation, which only covers emergency 

measures to control erosion/sedimentation and only occurs on a limited number of acres. 

Rehabilitation does not include reforestation activities. 

Procedures for estimating and projecting future wilt!fire costs and damages 

1. Expected-acres-burned per year was computed as the average annual fire acreage for 

fires greater than 100 aces on Arizona and New Mexico public lands during the 

period 1993-2002. Average annual fire acreage equals 443,307 acres (NIFC 2003). 

Assumptions: 

a. Future fire occurrence will be similar to that experienced in the last decade; 

b. The spike in fire acreage experienced in 2002 will be repeated periodically in 

future decades; and 

c. As a result of worsening hazard, including bark beetle mortality, estimates based 

on the last decade are likely conservative. 

2. Average costs for suppression and rehabilitation were computed using costs and 

acreage provided by the Rocky Mountain Research Station for fires on public lands in 

which the Forest Service provided suppression. Totals were converted to cost per 

acre burned. Suppression cost equals $377 per acre; rehabilitation cost equals $22 per 

acre, in 2002 dollars (Gebert 2003). 

Assumptions: 

a. Average Forest Service costs are adequate estimators of costs on all public 

ownerships; 

b. Average costs include the wildlife urban interface (WUI) which comprise about 

16% of Class 3 (high hazard) areas in the Region. Because suppression costs for 

fires occurring in the WUI would ordinarily be higher than for those more distant 

from civilization, region-wide averages may overstate costs for fires not 

threatening urban areas (USDA 2002b); and 

c. Given Assumption b, costs should be interpreted as applicable to the average fire 

situation 16% of the acreage encompassed by an average fire would involve 

WUI acreage. 

3. Timber losses were calculated by cumulatively reducing annual regional harvest 

values 5% each year. Average regional harvest values were provided by the USDA 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Average annual harvest value $11.5 million. 

7 
81 

Assumptions: 

a. Regional harvest value will decrease in proportion to decreases in the available 

timber base. This is consistent with forestry principles that equate allowable 

annual harvest with incremental growth and that reductions in growth caused by 

fire will therefore reduce harvest; 

b. The above assumption is more conservative than basing timber-damage estimates 

on the volume and potential value of the timber actually destroyed by the fire. 

Destroyed trees may never have been utilized as timber or such utilization may 

have occurred in the future, reducing their value through discounting; and 

c. The 5% annual decline in timber harvest value, while not empirically derived, was 

considered a reasonable and conservative assumption. 

4. Structural and property losses and damages were not included in the economic 

analysis. Except for timber, expected changes in ecosystem values were also not 

included in the analysis. 

Procedures for estimating and projecting future restoration costs 

1. Restoration needs were estimated by determining the acreage of highly hazardous 

fuels (condition class 3 acreage) occurring within ponderosa and dry mixed conifer 

stands in Arizona and New Mexico (Schmidt et al. 2002). Class 3 acreage equals 4.4 

million acres. 

2. A range of restoration costs were estimated primarily through discussion with 

experienced Ecological Restoration Institute scientists because published data are 

scarce for the southwest. Net restoration costs may vary widely because they are 

dependent on the value of timber removed during the treatment. Such values are very 

site-specific and difficult to generalize. The analysis was therefore run for costs 

ranging from $200 per acre to $800 per acre in $200 increments. 

3. The analysis was conducted as if all Class 3 acreage would be treated immediately. 

The per-acre results, however, may be applied to smaller units depending on budgets 

and capabilities presently existent. Delays, however, will result in losses as untreated 

areas continue to bum. 

Economic analysis procedures 

The economic analysis was conducted over a 20 year period and employed a 4% discount 

rate. Annual suppression and rehabilitation costs, and timber losses were discounted to 

present value for each year and summed to yield the present value without restoration. 

With restoration the present value was calculated as the initial net treatment cost plus the 

discounted value of maintenance treatments conducted in years lO and 20. The analysis 

was repeated four times, once for each net treatment cost. 

The present net value (PNV) was determined using a with minus without procedure. 

With this method the present value without restoration was subtracted from the present 

8 
82 

value with restoration. This difference in the with and without PNV's represents the net 

savings in costs and damages resulting from the with restoration scenario. 

Results 

The present value without restoration totaled -$2.5 billion for the 20-year analysis period 

(a loss or cost of -$2.5 billion). Restoration present value ranged from -$1.1 billion with 

net restoration costs of $200 per acre to -$3.8 billion for the $800 per acre cost. The 

break-even point occurred when net restoration treatment cost equal $505 per acre. With 

greater treatment costs PNV became negative; below $505 per acre the savings in fire 

costs and damages more than offset restoration costs. Table 1 shows these restoration 

treatment PNV' s by differing treatment cost, converted to per acre basis. 

Table l. Present net value of with minus without treatment scenarios for four levels of 

treatment cost. 

Treatment cost ($/acre) 

Discussion 

200 

400 

600 

800 

Restoration PNV ($/acre) 

306 

106 

-94 

-294 

These results, which are based upon conservative assumptions, support the feasibility of 

spending up to $505 per acre for the ecological restoration of Class 3 forest lands in 

Arizona and New Mexico, given our assumption that crown fires over 1 00 acres would 

essentially be eliminated. The smaller fires (less than 100 acres) require no additional 

suppression and rehabilitation costs beyond those budgeted for pre-suppression and were 

assumed to be the same whether or not the forest was restored. 

We believe these results to be very conservative for several reasons: 

1. Per acre fire suppression cost did not include all charges for national contracts, such 

as many aviation or catering services. These costs averaged $96 per acre for the 

period of 1993-2002 (Gebert 2003); 

2. Changes in ecological and social values associated with restoration, while not marketvalued, are generally considered to be positive; 

3. Losses and damages associated with structures, private land value, and other 

infrastructure associated with the wildland urban interface were not included in the 

analysis; and 

4. Pre-suppression costs are likely to decline as the risk of large fires declines or is 

eliminated. 

9 
83 

Impacts Associated With Elimination Of Fire In The Wildland-Urban [nterface 

In 2002, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire caused about $250 million in damages over and above 

the suppression, emergency rehabilitation, and timber costs used in the previous analysis. 

If such a fire were to occur every decade, damages would average $25 million per year 

for a present value of $340 million over 20 years. This would add about $77 dollars per 

acre to the break-even cost for restoration, raising it from $505 to $582 per acre. 

Rodeo-(nedeski: a manifestation of action delayed and a presage of tonwrrow 

During the period of June 18, 2002 until July 7, 2002 the Rodeo-Chedeski complex 

involved 467,066 acres in east central Arizona. Of those acres, 289,184 were on the 

White Mountain Apache reservation, 167,215 were on the Sitgreaves National Forest, 

and 10,667 acres are lands administered by the Tonto National Forest. The majority of 

Forest Service acres involved in this fire were categorized as being in Condition Class 3. 

Condition Class 3 lands are those where fire regimes have been significantly altered from 

their historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. These 

areas require high levels of restoration treatments such as mechanical thinning before fire 

can be used to restore the historical fire regime. 

Post-fire assessments clearly indicate that past management activities influenced the 

fire's rate of spread and intensity. Had it not been for past fuel treatments along the 

eastern flank of the fire, it could easily have continued out of control and we might not 

have the communities of Pinetop-Lakeside today. 

Costs 

• Suppression Costs: $43 - $50 million 

• BAER (Emergency Rehab Activities or lipstick on a corpse): As of2 morths ago the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest had already spent $9 million. 

• Long-term rehabilitation: the Apache-Sitgreaves will spend another $20 million over 

the next 3 years. The White Mountain Apache Tribe will also spend $20 million 

dollars over the next 3 years. 

• Reforestation Costs: the White Mountain Apache Tribe expects to spend $90 million. 

The Apache-Sitgreaves only plans to replant about 500 "most critical" acres. The 

cost of this reforestation is included in the $20 million of long-term rehabilitation. 

• Insured losses of homes and property $120 million 

• Emergency federal and state public assistance $2.5 million 

• Local levels of government are heavily dependent on sales tax collections. Sales tax 

revenue accounts for at least 20% and in some cases as much as 80% of a town's 

general fund revenue. The fire occurred at the height of tourist season. Local 

businesses were shut down for almost 30 days during June and July. These two 

months account for approximately 20% of total annual sales tax collections for this 

region. Loss in sales tax revenue during this period is estimated to be over $2million. 

10 
84 

• Short-term job losses (Jui-Dec '02) estimated at 272 in Navajo Co. and 80 in Apache 

Co. Lost wages associated with the short-term unemployment in Navajo and Apache 

Counties are estimated to be $4.5 and $1.6 million, respectively (Thomas, Warren and 

Associates 2002). 

• We have not even begun to calculate value of infrastructure (power lines, roads, 

bridges, etc.) losses nor have we yet calculated the costs associated with erosion, soil 

loss, wildlife habitat destroyed, sedimentation into reservoirs, and other changes in 

ecosystem services. 

• 7,000 Mexican Spotted Owl PAC acres on Forest Service land alone suffered 

moderate to high severity bum. Half of this habitat area completely lost. 

• Burned at least 5,000 acres of riparian habitat 

When all is said and done, we could have simultaneously restored the ecosystem to a 

healthy condition and improved socioeconomic well-being by providing long-tenn 

employment and income. Instead we spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the creation 

of a landscape-scale ashen shroud. Some simple calculations indicate that we could have 

completed restoration-based fuel treatments on every acre for less than this fire will cost 

society. 

Implications for the western United States 

The current trends, conditions, and ecological and economic consequences previously 

described are certainly not unique to Arizona and New Mexico. The entire western 

United States has similar ecological conditions in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer 

forests, which are also at risk of collapse from insect outbreak and catastrophic crown 

fire. The analysis for the rest of the western states is ongoing but preliminary data 

suggest results will be similar to Arizona and New Mexico. Table 2 shows data on acres 

of ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer in high and moderate risk classes by 

intermountain states. The majority of western states have significant forest at high or 

moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components. 

Table 2. Acres of ponderosa pine (PIPO) and dry mixed-conifer (DMC) in Condition 

class 3 and 2 by intermountain states. Acres are based on USDA Forest Service data 

(Schmidt et a!. 2002). 

State PIPO Class 3 

Idaho 1,570,943 

Montana 115,920 

Wyoming 120,553 

Colorado 70,978 

Arizona 1,646,143 

NewMexico 2,086,ll9 

Utah 4,081 

Oregon 5,068,005 

Washington 1,364,930 

PIPO Class2 

3,799,634 

4,273,502 

769,022 

3,244,235 

2,663,137 

2,973,421 

334,737 

5,941,164 

4,207,364 

DMC Class 3 

655,943 

161,591 

59,016 

101,672 

ll7,441 

453,441 

4,681 

184,166 

1,165,797 

DMC Class2 

740,622 

41,078 

73,388 

66,799 

1,027 

6,867 

25,021 

470,986 

784,107 

Condition Class 3 lands arc those where fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical 

range and the risk oflosing key ecosystem components is high. Condition Class 2lands are those where 

ll 
85 

fire regimes haYe been moderately altered from their historical range and have moderate risk of losing key 

ecosystem components. 

The fire suppression costs that could be avoided by restoration are also high for other 

western regions. Table 3 illustrates the fire cost for USDA Forest Service Regions in the 

western United States. The per acre cost for regions 1 and 3 are similar to the cost for 

Arizona and New Mexico. Southern Idaho, Utah, western Wyoming costs are 

significantly lower, and California, Oregon, and Washington have significantly higher 

costs. Note that these costs do not include all charges for national contracts, such as 

many aviation or catering services. These cost averaged $96 per acre for the period of 

1993-2002. (Gebert2003) 

Table 3. Average per acre suppression and rehabilitation based on expenditures by USDA 

Forest Service Regions in the western United States 

USDA-FS States in Region 

Re ion 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Conclusions 

Northern Idaho, Montana 

Eastern Wyoming, Colorado 

Arizona, New Mexico 

Southern Idaho, Utah, western Wyoming 

California 

A vg. Cost/ Acre 

(2002 $) 

386 

384 

399 

202 

561 

"Ironically, exclusion (>{ low-intensityfires virtually assures eventual 

occurrence of large high-intensityfires that kill most trees. Roughly ha(f of 

the more than 3 million acres that burned in wildfires in 1994 in the 

Western United States was in these ponderosa pine forests. In an active 

wildfire year, the expense of attempting to exclude fire fi·om these forests 

can reach one billion dollars. Paradoxically, these costly attempts at 

suppression are often unsuccessfi!l. In comparison, costs of restoration 

treatments are modest. " ( Arno 1996) 

We no longer face the question of whether society will spend the money or not. We are 

going to pay, one way or another, unless we make the unlikely choice to no longer spend 

money trying to fight and contain unnatural crown fires. We now face the choice of how 

we are going to spend the money, and what are we likely to obtain from that expenditure. 

If we invest in restoratiorrbased hazardous fuel treatments, we invest in the future; we 

invest in healthy, sustainable ecosystems for our children and grandchildren. If we 

continue our current approach of suppression, we continue the depreciation of our forests, 

increasing the risk of radical shifts in their structure and function due to crown fire. 

Given these choices, it makes a great deal of economic sense to conduct forest restoration 

on a large scale today in order to retain future ecological and economic values. Our 

analysis demonstrates that the fire suppression costs that can be avoided in the future are 

sufficiently large by themselves to justify restoration expenditures today. 

12 
86 

References 

Arno, S.F. 1996. The concept: restoring ecological structure and process in ponderosa pine 

forests., pp37- 38, INT-GTR 341. 

Barbour, RJ., R.D. Fight, GA Christensen, GL Pinjuv, V. Nagubadi. 2001. Assessing 

the need, costs, and potential benefits of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to 

reduce fire hazard in Montana and New Mexico. Final report to the Joint Fire 

Sciences Program, USDA Forest Service, PNW, Portland, OR. 

Cassidy, R 2003. Vegetation Manipulation in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems. Presentation on 

the Gila National Forest, April2003. 

Cooper, C. F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine 

forests since white settlement. Ecology 42:493-499. 

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994a. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure and 

resource conditions: changes since Euro-American settlement. Forestry 92(1 ):39-

47. 

Covington, W. W. and M.M. Moore. 1994b. Postsett1ement changes in natural fire regimes: 

ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Sustainable Forestry 

2:153-181. 

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fule, MM. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, lN. Mast, S.S. Sackett, 

and M.R. Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of 

the Southwest. Journal ofForestty 95(4):23-29. 

Dahms, C.W. and B.W. Geils. 1997. An assessment offorest ecosystem health in the 

Southwest. General Technical ReportRM-GTR-295, USDA Forest Service, Fort 

Colllins, Colorado. 

Fiedler, C.E., C.E. Keegan, S.H. Robertson, TA Morgan, CW. Woodall, JT. Chmelik. 

2002. Strategic assessment of fire hazard in New Mexico. Final report to the Joint 

Fire Sciences Program, USDA Forest Service, PNW, Portland, OR. 

Gebert, K. 2003. Data provided by USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Science 

Lab, Missoula, Montana. 

Lynch, D.L., W.H. Romme, and M.L. Floyd. 2000. Forest restoration is southwestern 

ponderosa pine. Journal (if Forestry 98(8): 17-24. 

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). 

section on historical fire data Ul!!!LIJ::!!.~~ill~:!.§Ll:1LI:ill:'i.§Y~~lli:!:!Y!~) 

Schmidt, KM., JP. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W.l Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. 

Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. 

USDA Forest Service, GTR Rocky Mountain Research Station-87. 

13 
87 

Thomas, Warren and Associates. 2002. Employment and Sales Tax Revenue Impacts of 

the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. Phoenix, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern 

Region. (In Review). 

USDA Forest Service Photogrammetry/GIS Unit. 2002. Map titled: United States Forest 

Service/Southwestern Region fire region/condition class and Wild Land Urban 

Interface. April 2002 

0 

14