U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

81–299 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–26 

FOREST SERVICE BUDGET FOR FY 2014 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2014 FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

APRIL 16, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 3 

Tidwell, Hon. Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ............... 5 

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J., Secretary, Department of Agriculture ........................ 37 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 39 

(1) 

FOREST SERVICE BUDGET FOR FY 2014 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. Today the committee will consider the President’s request for the Forest Service’s fiscal year 2014 budget. The 

President’s budget was released last Wednesday, April 10. This will 

be the first hearing in the Congress on the fiscal year 2014 budget. 

I want to thank the Chief and his staff in particular for their 

being so responsive to get up here so quickly. I think it’s understood that these are very difficult budget times, particularly given 

sequestration. The Chief knows I am particularly concerned about 

a number of the decisions made in this year’s budget, particularly 

the staggering proposed reductions to the timber program. 

I’m of the view that there is an extraordinary opportunity to get 

the harvest up in this country, particularly built around sensible 

environmental policies and the collaborative work, for example, 

that we’re seeing in Eastern Oregon in Grant County on the 

Malheur Forest. 

Today’s budget, however, both in terms of the drastic decreases 

in the timber harvest that are proposed and the deep cuts to the 

hazardous fuels program with corresponding drops to the acres proposed to be treated, seems to me to be very counterproductive to 

the work the agency must accomplish. In my view, and the Chief 

and I have talked about this, I think it would be a huge blow to 

the cause of forest health. To me, healthier forests are going to 

equal a healthier economy. 

Now, clearly, more is going to have to be done as we address this 

issue, particularly in terms of looking at all the benefits of our national forests. That’s what multiple use is all about. Clearly at the 

county payments hearing that we held recently, we stressed the 

need to get the timber cut up. 

This budget is not consistent with the agency’s restoration agenda of harvesting 3 billion board feet a year. In fact, it proposes 

going in the opposite direction, reducing the harvest target by 420 

million board feet for Fiscal Year 2014. My view is this will make 

2 

it tough to get the timber cut up, restore the forests, and set back 

the fight against wild fires. 

So I am going to work closely with the agency and colleagues 

here to see if—as these difficult decisions are made-tradeoffs can 

be found to make sure that the critical programs get the funding 

that’s necessary. 

Let me mention the question of the Secure Rural Schools program that was written in this committee and also to the 3 reiterations of the committee that were written here. The sequestration 

issue is going to work a real hardship on this program. We are 

hearing that at home. 

I just came off a big round of town hall meetings in Eastern Oregon. It came up consistently there. What the concern is with respect to this morning is the Forest Service sent letters to the Governors about the impact of sequestration on the payments made 

under the legislation. In the letters, the Forest Service requested 

that the States send back 5.1 percent of Title I and Title III funds 

that was distributed earlier this year. 

The Forest Service also gave States the option to have this absorbed from Title II funding, the funding that supports the important work of the Resource Advisory Committees. I think it’s understood for those who follow this committee that we consider these 

Resource Advisory Committees really part of the bright light in 

terms of forestry policy, particularly because it cements the collaborative work that is really the prerequisite to permanent progress. 

So what we’ve got with these cuts from sequestration is communities that are already on the edge of bankruptcy, desperate to do 

more work in the woods. Get people back to work in the woods. Get 

the forest harvest up. What they want is some predictability from 

the Federal Government. 

In response, the Forest Service has said not only will less timber 

be cut, but money needs to be given back. So I’m deeply concerned 

about the impacts these cuts are going to have on rural communities. 

What I heard last week, especially, and this came up at virtually 

every town hall meeting, were people saying what about the fact 

that the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior cannot 

even agree on the approach they’re going to take. That seems odd, 

even by Washington, DC, standards. So we’re going to have to inquire into that. 

Now I want to express my appreciation to the Administration for 

saying that Secure Rural Schools should be in the budget. That is 

certainly constructive. But we understand that we have to have the 

budget details in order to have a more thoughtful discussion about 

it. 

Let me talk briefly about wild land fire funding. Last year the 

country experienced a severe fire season with devastating impacts 

of wild land fire affecting numerous committees. It’s something 

Senator Udall of Colorado cares a great deal about. 

As we know past emergency borrowing from discretionary accounts in Congress? rescissions from fire fighting accounts has left 

the Forest Service, once again, at risk of running out of fire fighting funds in the coming season. We are getting a sense that the 

coming season could be a record one. When there isn’t enough 

3 

money for fighting fires, every other program in the agency’s budget suffers at a time, as I’ve indicated, when they are already taking 

a big hit. 

On the wild land fire issue, as well, I’d like to note my ongoing 

disappointment with the level of funding in the budget for hazardous fuels treatment and the alarm at the level of cuts reflected 

in this budget. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorized $760 

million annually for hazardous fuels and the Administration does 

not come close to that level in its request. This budget proposes an 

extraordinarily large cut, cutting this line item by more than 30 

percent. 

Year after year this work has been underfunded. It’s absolutely 

key to reduce the severity of forest fires. Again, the budget is moving in the wrong direction. 

The result will once again be larger wild fires. Undoubtedly it 

will cost more to fight fires in the long run. Recent studies have 

confirmed that hazardous fuels treatments done in the right places 

lead to substantial reductions in both wild fire size and suppression 

cost. Once again, being penny wise and pound foolish takes its toll. 

We intend to explore these issues in more depth. Let me close 

with just a couple of last points. 

Many of us in this committee support full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. I was an original co-sponsor of this program. It has been tremendously successful 

in our State. I’m glad to see the strong commitment made to restoration among a number of the line items in the budget. 

I’m also pleased to see that this year’s budget request includes 

funding for new air tankers. Senator Murkowski and I have been 

very interested in this over the years. Chief, we have discussed the 

fleet of air tankers used for fire fighting continues to approach the 

end of its life span. 

It’s my understanding that the Forest Service expects to make an 

announcement later this month regarding next generation air tanker contracts. That is good news to the committee. We continue to 

remain concerned about whether the agency is going to have 

enough planes to fight fire this summer. 

Finally, I’m pleased that the agency has included legislative proposals to support a number of important priorities including support for permanent reauthorization of the stewardship contracting 

program. 

With that, let me yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski for any statement she would like to make. 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning. 

Welcome, Chief. Good to see you here. 

The Forest Service manages some 22 million acres of national 

forest lands in the Southeastern and South Central part of Alaska. 

That’s more acres than the entire 52 national forests that are located in the Eastern and the Southern United States. The Tongass 

National Forest is 80 percent of the land base in Southeast. So to 

say that the management vision and the decisions made by the 

4 

Forest Service have an effect on the health of Alaskan communities 

is truly an understatement. 

Chief, you and I have had plenty of opportunity to sit and visit. 

I know that you know the significance of the Tongass and how 

management of the Tongass impacts our Southeastern communities. Right now our communities, particularly in Southeast, are 

not healthy. In fact, they are on economic life support. 

I am concerned, Chief, that the vision that the Administration offers in this budget proposal for forest management looks more like 

one that I would expect to be proposed by the National Park Service than by a multiple use agency with vast timber resources. Management under this proposed budget is focused on tourism and 

recreation and ecosystem values, such as wildlife habitat. I agree, 

I agree, that these are important. But I have to remind you that 

the fundamental tenant of multiple use also includes the development of our natural resources. In Southeast Alaska, and I know in 

many rural communities across the West and Oregon, harvesting 

timber is still the economic life blood. 

I look forward to you giving us some assessment here as to how 

this budget will help us to continue to develop our natural resources and the jobs that are needed to produce them. I’m looking 

forward to your comments this morning, in particular responses to 

questions because your written testimony doesn’t really speak to 

timber harvest. It does speak to the other uses. But again, when 

we talk about multiple use, it does include and most certainly includes the management of our resources. 

Now on the issue of timber production this budget proposal 

seems to disregard the very commitment that you made to get the 

cut up, was the term that you used with Senator Wyden and me, 

just a couple weeks ago when you testified before this committee 

on Secure Rural Schools. At that hearing you reiterated that the 

Forest Service would stay focused on meeting the 3 billion board 

foot timber target set for FY’14. You then said that you recognize 

the importance of increasing timber harvest levels to rural communities. 

This budget proposal instead proposes a timber target for FY’14 

of 2.38 billion board feet. This is a 15 percent reduction from FY’13 

of 2.8 billion board feet. In terms of timber funding, I’m not even 

sure what that corresponds to as I see that you have again proposed to change the budget structure to consolidate 6 key budget 

line items into one entitled the integrated resource restoration line 

item. The IRR, as we’ve had a discussion in previous sessions here, 

the IRR makes it more difficult to figure out how and where funding is spent. So perhaps you can tell me this morning what those 

numbers are. 

Next, the Forest Service estimates that there are 82 million acres 

of the National Forest system in need of fuel treatments but proposes to again, substantially cut funding for the hazardous fuels 

program, as the Chairman has noted. Your proposed cut is 37 percent, its lowest level in the last 5 years. This is significantly below 

the authorized level of $760 million contained in the bipartisan 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

5 

So, Chief, I do hope that you can explain to us exactly what’s 

going on here. I understand that budgets are tight. We all know 

that. We recognize that. 

I would suggest that instead of proposing to increase funding for 

programs like land acquisition in the budget proposal that the Forest Service should fund its core priorities. The Forest Service has 

its hands fully managing what it currently owns. I think the last 

thing that the service needs right now is more land to manage. 

You’re simply not able to manage what it is that you have. So asking for more budget dollars to purchase more that you can’t manage makes no sense. 

Managing wild fire—wild land fire accounts for nearly 43 percent 

of the budget proposal. How the Forest Service configures its fire 

fighting aircraft assets and the modernization of the aging tanker 

fleet is something that we’re all following closely within the committee. Although there are proposed increases in this budget for 

modernizing, no further details are provided as to how that funding 

would be spent. 

I do understand that the Forest Service has awarded some legacy 

air tanker contracts but not the next generation large air tanker 

contracts. I do hope that you’ll be able to share with us this morning, today, the agency’s plans for modernization and the timeliness 

for moving forward. 

Now I will also make a similar comment to what Chairman 

Wyden has mentioned with regards to the Secure Rural Schools 

and the way that the Forest Service handled the sequestration. For 

months the Forest Service was aware of the pending automatic 

spending reductions that would occur under sequestration. Yet it 

appears that the Forest Service did nothing to inform or prepare 

States, the counties or the boroughs, for the possibility that this 

program would see reductions. 

I hope that you can speak to that. I’m sure that you will. But 

more importantly what the status is and how we move forward. 

Mr. Chairman, of course, I will have a number of questions after 

we hear from the Chief. But again, very important discussion this 

morning as it relates to our forests. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I think the committee is aware that you and I are very much in agreement on 

these kinds of issues. 

We have got to get the harvest up. We know we can do it in compliance with environmental rules. I think this is an area we heard 

about when I was up in Alaska where this committee can find common ground. I very much appreciate your statement. 

Chief Tidwell, welcome. Let’s go to your prepared remarks and 

then you can have some questions. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. OK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, 

Senator Barrasso, Senator Johnson, thank you for giving me this 

opportunity to discuss the President’s 2014 budget request for the 

Forest Service. I appreciate the support that this committee has 

given the Forest Service over the years. I look forward to conVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
6 

tinuing to work with you to be able to deliver, what I believe, is 

what Americans want from their National Forests. 

Now the President’s budget request reflects our commitment to 

strategic investments that are needed to grow the economy while 

exercising fiscal restraint. The budget makes some very difficult 

tradeoffs between programs while focusing on, where I believe, we 

can make that economic growth, especially in rural America which 

includes supporting 450,000 jobs that come from the activities off 

of National Forests and Grasslands. 

Now I know you’re going to have some concerns about the 

amounts on some of our individual budget line items. But overall, 

I believe this budget request is a good investment, especially when 

you look at 3 key objectives. 

The first is to get back on track with our accelerated restoration 

strategy to be able to get back and move forward to be able to treat 

more of that 65 to 83 million acres that need restoration and especially with the over 12 million that need timber harvest to be able 

to restore those lands. We’re going to do this through increasing capacity through our requests for full funding for the Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration Fund, through requesting permanent 

authorization for stewardship contracting, to be able to not only restore those lands, but to provide certainty to private—so private investment can occur to be able to expand the wood products industry. 

We want to continue to use landscape scale EISs like the Four 

Fry in Arizona to address between 750 and a million acres with one 

EIS or to do the adaptive EIS that we’ve done on the Black Hills 

where we did one EIS to address 248,000 acres that allow us to be 

able to go in there and address wherever the next insect and disease outbreak occurs without any additional analysis. 

We also want to expand and create new markets. That’s why we’re asking for an additional $13 million in our research funds 

that’s dedicated to increasing markets for wood. It’s to build on 

USDA’s green building initiative, our wood energy program and 

also to continue our research and nano technology. 

The second key part of our budget deals with funding for fire 

suppression. This budget includes a level of preparedness that will 

allow us to continue our 98 percent success rate when we’re taking 

initial attack. It also requests the 10 year average for suppression 

which includes $134 million increase from what we needed in 

FY’12 to be able to meet the agreement of the 10-year average. So 

$134 million had to come from other programs to be able to meet 

the 10-year average. 

It also does address the threat to wild fire in homes and communities by reducing hazardous fuels on 685,000 acres. Yes, we have 

reduced our request there. But we’re focusing those funds on the 

wild land urban interface. 

We’re also requesting an additional $50 million to help modernize our large air tanker fleet. 

Now the third key objective is to work through the America’s 

Great Outdoors Initiative to support community based conservation, help Americans reconnect to the outdoors and provide opportunities for economic expansion to retain and create jobs. We’re 

going to do this by supporting the recreational opportunities that 

7 

not only add the quality to our lives, but it supports our communities through 205,000 jobs. We want to help Americans reconnect 

with the outdoors through increase in our youth employment authorities. 

We also request an increase in LWCF funding that reflects the 

need for conservation easements and land acquisition to protect 

critical forests and to acquire public access to make sure that the 

public can continue to enjoy their national forests. 

It also reduces Administrative costs. Any time we can eliminate 

an in holding on our national forests it reduces the cost when it 

comes to boundary management. Also gives us more flexibility to 

do the restoration work that needs to occur on these lands. 

We also want to encourage the biomass utilization and other renewable energy opportunities while working on our processes to 

issue oil and gas permit applications—to process oil and gas permit 

applications in our energy transmission proposals. 

We’re also going to continue our focus on our operational efficiencies. Between FY’13 and FY’14 we’re going to cut $100 million 

from our fixed costs by doing a better job with strategic acquisition 

and reducing thus our overall, overhead costs. 

We want to continue to offset budget reductions by gaining efficiencies like with our NEPA and sell preparation with timber sales. 

Since 1998 funding has been reduced by $185 million when adjusted to inflation. Staff has been reduced by 49 percent. But during the same time we’ve had to reduce our unit costs for a million 

board—by a thousand board feet by 23 percent. We want to be able 

to continue to do that work. 

Then the last part of our efficiencies is to continue the work 

we’re doing to use science, our experience and expertise to reduce 

the actions that are ineffective when it comes to fire suppression. 

Because of that last year, even though with a record fire season, 

we reduced our costs by $377 million because of the techniques 

that we’re using today, the science that we’re using today. 

Our goal is to increase our collaborative efforts to encourage 

greater public involvement in the management of the national forests and grasslands. We need to maintain and restore healthy landscapes. We need to take care of the ecosystem. But we also need 

to support healthy, thriving communities and provide jobs in rural 

America. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to your 

questions. 

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

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to testify on the President’s Budget request for the Forest Service for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2014. I appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past, and I look forward to continuing to work together with Members of the Committee to ensure that stewardship of our Nation’s forests and grasslands continues to meet the desires and expectations of the American people. I am 

confident that this budget will allow the Forest Service to meet this goal while demonstrating both fiscal restraint and efficient, cost-effective spending. 

Our Nation can and should take steps to make Government more effective and 

more efficient in the 21st century. The FY 2014 budget that the President is proposing reflects the difficult choices we need to make to reduce spending while investing in long-term economic growth and job creation. To make the strategic investVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
8 

ments needed to grow the economy while exercising fiscal restraint, this budget 

makes difficult tradeoffs between programs. It also reflects efficiency and improvements to reduce our administrative costs. It is designed to appropriately fund many 

of the programs that matter to Americans. 

Value of the Forest Service 

Our mission at the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations. The mission includes helping Americans use and enjoy the lands and 

waters that belong to them as citizens of the United States. The Forest Service 

manages a system of national forests and grasslands on an area almost twice the 

size of California-193 million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico. These lands entrusted to our care provide some of the richest resources and most breathtaking scenery in the Nation, as well as drinking water for millions of Americans. 

As the Nation’s leading forestry organization, we also serve Americans in other 

ways. The Forest Service was founded in 1905 to stop the degradation of watersheds 

and manage the lands for the benefit of all Americans. To that end, in addition to 

the National Forest System, agency programs support the sustainable stewardship 

of more than 600 million acres of forest land across the Nation, including 423 million acres of private forest land, 68 million acres of State forest land, 18 million 

acres of Tribal forests, and 100 million acres of urban and community forests. 

In addition, we maintain the largest forestry research organization in the world, 

with more than a century of discoveries in such areas as wood and forest products, 

fire behavior and management, and sustainable forest management. In an age of 

global interconnectedness, we also support the sustainable stewardship of forests 

around the world; we have served people in more than 80 countries, which have direct benefits to the American forestry economy through marketing American forest 

products and invasive species prevention. 

America’s forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. The benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include jobs and economic activity, especially in rural areas 

where other sources of employment and economic growth might be few. In FY 2011, 

for example, the various activities on the National Forest System contributed over 

$36 billion to America’s gross domestic product, supporting nearly 450,000 jobs. 

The most popular uses of the national forests and grasslands are associated with 

outdoor recreation. Our increasingly diverse visitor population engages in activities 

such as camping, picnicking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, equestrian use, 

firewood and forest product gathering, all-terrain vehicle riding, skiing, 

snowboarding, hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, and 

visiting cultural sites and visitor centers. The national forests and grasslands attract about 166 million visits per year, supporting about 205,000 jobs and contributing $13.6 billion to the Nation’s gross domestic product each year. Fifty-five percent of our visitors engage in a strenuous physical activity, contributing to their 

health and well-being. 

Noncommercial uses of forest and grasslands also provide vital benefits to the 

American people. For example, more than half of our Nation’s freshwater flows from 

public and private forest land, and about 60 million Americans rely on drinking 

water that originates on the National Forest System. Forest Service land management, combined with Forest Service assistance to private landowners, helps protect 

the single greatest source of drinking water in the Nation. 

The Forest Service’s creation of jobs and economic opportunities is not limited to 

rural areas. Through Job Corps and other programs, we provide training and employment for America’s urban youth, and we help veterans transition to civilian life. 

Our Urban and Community Forestry Program has also provided jobs and careertraining opportunities for underemployed adults and at-risk youth through activities 

such as tree care and riparian corridor restoration. 

We also engage a wide range of partners who contribute to investments in land 

management projects and activities. In FY 2012, we entered into more than 7,700 

grants and agreements with partners who contributed a total of about $535 million 

in cash and non-cash (in-kind) contributions. Combined with our own contribution 

of nearly $779 million, the total value of these partnerships was over $1.3 billion. 

The growing value of grants and agreements demonstrates the increasing importance of partnerships in fulfilling the Forest Service mission. 

Forest landowners of all kinds benefit from our forest-related research, as does 

anyone who buys products made from wood. For example, Forest Service scientists 

have developed a free software application that helps people identify invasive plants 

and provides control recommendations. Our research and development bring all 

kinds of benefits to the American people, improving their quality of life. 

9 

More than 50 percent of the Nation’s forests-over 420 million acres-are privately 

owned. Working with the State Foresters, we help State forest managers and private forest landowners manage America’s working forests sustainably. Through our 

Forest Health Management program, for example, we monitor and assess forest 

health conditions on all lands nationwide, both public and private, tracking outbreaks of insects and disease and providing funds for treating areas at risk. 

In February 2011, President Barack Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for conservation and outdoor 

recreation in the 21st century. The initiative challenges the American people to 

work together to find lasting conservation solutions, based on the premise that protecting America’s natural heritage is a goal shared by all. In tandem with the President’s initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack outlined an all-lands vision 

for conservation. He called for partnerships and collaboration to reach shared goals 

for restoring healthy, resilient forested landscapes across all landownerships nationwide. 

Our FY 2014 budget request is accordingly designed to help us work with partners across borders and boundaries to invest in America’s green infrastructure at 

a landscape scale. Our focus on landscape-scale conservation dovetails with broader 

Administration priorities, including the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, the Secretary’s ‘‘all-lands’’ vision, and the Department of Agriculture’s priority 

goal of enhancing water resources. Our goal at the Forest Service is to ensure the 

ability of our Nation’s forests and grasslands to deliver a full range of jobs and benefits, both now and for generations to come. 

Challenges to Conservation 

Our Nation’s ability to protect its forest and grassland resources is now at risk 

due to drought, invasive species, and uncharacteristically severe wildfires and outbreaks of insects and diseases. Such stresses and disturbances are affecting America’s forests, grasslands, and watersheds on an unprecedented scale. Twenty-seven 

percent of all forest-associated plants and animals in the United States, a total of 

4,005 species, are at risk of extinction. Habitat degradation is the main reason-affecting 85 percent of all imperiled species. Many species are also threatened by nonnative invasive species, which affect 49 percent of all imperiled species. 

Although biodiversity is exceptionally high on the national forests and grasslands, 

habitat degradation and invasive species remain serious threats. We estimate that 

watershed functionality is impaired or at risk on 48 percent of the watersheds on 

National Forest System lands. Severe outbreaks of western forest pests have affected 32 million acres on the national forests alone. Between 65 and 82 million 

acres are in need of fuels and forest health treatments-up to 42 percent of the entire 

National Forest System. 

Part of the problem is severe drought, resulting in extreme fire weather, very 

large fires and longer fire seasons. Since 2000, at least 10 States have had their 

largest fires on record, and some have had their records broken more than once. In 

2000, for the first time since the 1950s, more than seven million acres burned nationwide; and in 2012, more than nine million acres burned. 

The spread of homes and communities into areas prone to wildfire is an increasing management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, we expect to see substantial increases in housing density on 44 million acres of private forest land nationwide, an 

area larger than North and South Carolina combined. More than 70,000 communities are now at risk from wildfire, and less than 15,000 have a community wildfire 

protection plan or an equivalent plan. 

A growing proportion of the Forest Service budget has been needed for fire-related 

activities of all kinds. In FY 1991, for example, fire-related activities accounted for 

about 13 percent of our total budget; by FY 2012, it was 40 percent. That has left 

a smaller amount of funding for nonfire purposes (watersheds, wildlife, recreation, 

and other benefits and services). With increasingly limited funding, we need to approach our work differently. 

Budget Request and Focus Areas 

The FY 2014 President’s Budget request is designed to meet the challenges we 

face. The President’s proposed overall budget for discretionary funding for the Forest Service in FY 2014 is $4.9 billion. It shifts $62 million from key programs to 

meet the requirement to fund the 10-year rolling average of fire suppression costs. 

In response to the challenges we face, we are focusing our efforts on three key 

areas: restoring ecosystems; strengthening communities while providing jobs; and 

managing wildland fires. In these tough economic times, our proposed budget balances spending on priorities in each of these three focus areas against measures to 

decrease costs. Through strategic partnerships, we will continue to leverage our 

10 

funds to accomplish more work, yielding more benefits for the people we serve while 

also sustaining forest and grassland ecosystems for future generations. 

Restoring Ecosystems 

Our approach to ecological degradation is to accelerate ecological restoration. The 

Forest Service is restoring the ability of forest and grassland ecosystems to resist 

climate-related stresses, recover from climate-related disturbances, and continue to 

deliver the values and benefits that Americans want and need. Reforestation, habitat enhancements, invasive species control, hazardous fuels treatments, and other 

measures can help to make an ecosystem more resilient and more capable of delivering benefits, such as protecting water supplies and supporting native fish and 

wildlife. Our budget request for FY 2014 is specifically designed to support integrated restoration efforts across the Forest Service. 

Through Integrated Resource Restoration, land managers are accelerating the 

pace of restoration and job creation, in part by using the Forest Service’s Watershed 

Condition Framework to identify high-priority watersheds for treatment. Managers 

use Integrated Resource Restoration to integrate activities such as hazardous fuels 

reduction, road decommissioning, and removal of barriers to fish passage. Outcomes 

include reducing risk from fire, insects, and diseases; maintaining clean drinking 

water for communities; and supporting more local jobs and economic opportunities. 

For example, in FY 2012 through our overall efforts we treated almost 2.6 million 

acres to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience. Under the pilot program, through restoration activities we treated almost 800,000 acres. We propose 

fully implementing Integrated Resource Restoration across the Forest Service in FY 

2014. 

The growing need for restoration-related work and investments on the National 

Forest System is providing jobs and community benefits. The Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program was created in 2009 to restore high-priority forested landscapes, improve forest health, promote job stability, create a reliable wood 

supply, and reduce firefighting costs across the United States. After the program 

was created, the Secretary of Agriculture evaluated collaboratively developed project 

proposals, selecting 20 large-scale projects for 10-year funding, along with three additional high-priority projects for funding from other sources. They support an array 

of restoration activities, including reducing hazardous fuels, restoring watershed 

function and resilience, and improving forest vegetation and wildlife habitat. Continued implementation of these projects is a high priority in our FY 2014 budget 

request. For example, the 23 projects under this program have created or maintained approximately 7,500 jobs over the last two years and generated almost $272 

million in labor income. They have also reduced the danger of fire on more than 

600,000 acres near communities and enhanced clean water supplies by remediating 

or decommissioning 6,000 miles of roads. 

The Forest Service is creating partnerships across the country to help protect 

water by reducing the risk of fire in municipal watersheds that provide communities 

with water for drinking and other uses, such as irrigation, fisheries, and recreation. 

To help leverage our funding, we are proposing a new program for Restoration Partnerships in FY 2014. The program will foster some of the most advanced public-private partnership initiatives in the Federal government, leveraging new outside resources to support the Forest Service’s restoration efforts. Most funding under the 

new program will go to support cost-share projects that will be competed for at the 

national level to attract matching financial support from partners. 

Another Forest Service program with a restoration emphasis is Forest Health 

Management. Under the program, we conduct risk mapping and surveys to identify 

the areas at greatest risk from insects and disease, including invasive species such 

as emerald ash borer and white pine blister rust. In identifying the areas at greatest risk and deciding on how to respond, we work with the States, in part by utilizing the State Forest Action Plans to help inform response decisions. 

The Forest Service is finalizing directives for implementing the new National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule governing how land management 

plans are written for the national forests and grasslands. Half of all units on the 

National Forest System have plans that are more than 15 years old. Successful forest plan revisions are key to meeting the Forest Service’s contemporary land management challenges. The new 2012 Planning Rule will help land managers focus on 

collaborative watershed restoration while promoting jobs and economic opportunities 

in rural communities. 

In concert with the President’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative and Secretary 

Vilsack’s all-lands vision for conservation, the Forest Service has launched an initiative to accelerate restoration across shared landscapes. The Accelerated Restoration 

Initiative builds on Integrated Resource Restoration, the Collaborative Forest LandVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
11 

scape Restoration Program, the Watershed Condition Framework, the 2012 Planning Rule, and other restoration-related programs and initiatives to increase the 

pace of ecological restoration while creating more jobs in rural communities. 

The Forest Service is supporting accelerated restoration through our programs in 

Research and Development. We have seven high-priority research areas, including 

Watershed Management and Restoration, which is designed to support our focus on 

protecting and enhancing water resources. In our Bioenergy and Biobased Products 

research area, we are developing technology to sustainably produce woody biomass 

and convert it into liquid fuels, chemicals, and other high-value products. In partnership with the wood products industry, we are also developing science to commercialize nanocellulosic technologies to generate new high-value products such as durable composites and paper that is stronger and lighter. This will revolutionize technology to create new jobs and revenues and help restore America’s economy through 

industrial development and expansion. 

We are also pursuing longer term strategic research. For example, sustainable forest management is predicated on decades of data on forest conditions collected 

through our Forest Inventory and Analysis program. We conduct long-term research 

in such areas as forest disturbances, the effects of climate change, fire and fuels, 

invasive species, wildlife and fish, and resource management and use to meet local 

needs. In all of our research, we are committed to delivering new knowledge and 

technologies to support sustainable forest and grassland management. 

Strengthening Communities and Providing Jobs 

Our FY 2014 budget request emphasizes the role that communities play in sustaining the forests and grasslands around them and the benefits they provide. 

Working with State and local partners, we are focusing on landscape-scale outcomes 

through cross-boundary actions including forestry projects identified through the 

State forest Action Plans. Accordingly, we propose building on our State and Private 

Forestry Deputy Area Redesign initiative through a new program called Landscape 

Scale Restoration. Our new program will capitalize on the State Forest Action Plans 

to target the forested areas most in need of restoration treatments while leveraging 

partner funds. 

We also work with the States through our Forest Legacy Program to identify forests critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs. Through the program, we provide 

working forests with permanent protection by purchasing conservation easements 

from willing private landowners. 

In a similar vein, and supporting the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, our Land Acquisition program is designed to protect critical ecosystems and 

prevent habitat fragmentation by acquiring inholdings on the National Forest System and other lands where we can improve public access. We are working in collaboration with the Department of the Interior to leverage our joint investments by coordinating our efforts to protect intact, functioning ecosystems across entire landscapes. We propose transferring $177 million in discretionary and mandatory funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to support these goals. 

The Forest Service also engages urban communities in protecting and restoring 

America’s 100 million acres of urban and community forests. For example, we are 

working with 10 other Federal agencies in the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, 

designed to restore watersheds in urban areas. Through our Urban and Community 

Forestry program, we are benefiting communities by helping them to plant trees, 

especially through demonstration projects. Through our Conservation Education programs, we are engaging millions of children and their families in outdoor experiences. 

In addition, we are helping communities acquire local landscapes for public recreation and watershed benefits through our Community Forestry and Open Space program. Our goal is to help create a Nation of citizen stewards committed to restoring 

the forests around them to health. 

Our community focus supports the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative 

to achieve landscape-scale restoration objectives, connect more people to the outdoors, and support opportunities for outdoor recreation while providing jobs and income for rural communities. Building on existing partnerships, establishing a 21st 

century Conservation Corps will help us to increase the number of work and training opportunities for young people and veterans through high-priority conservation 

and restoration work on public lands. To engage communities in conserving the 

lands around them, the Forest Service is building public-private partnerships that 

leverage new resources to support the Forest Service’s restoration goals. Our new 

Restoration Partnerships program features national competitive grants to support 

local restoration projects, with matching funds from partners. 

12 

We are also building public-private partnerships through our Sustainable Recreation Framework. Many economic opportunities and other community benefits generated on the national forests and grasslands are associated with outdoor recreation. 

Through the Sustainable Recreation Framework, we are engaging communities to 

protect and increase recreational access as well as jobs, benefits, and opportunities 

associated with outdoor recreation. 

Our associated Trails program designates trails for multiple uses, consistent with 

our travel management rule, while building partnerships in trail stewardship. Our 

Roads program is designed to maintain forest roads and bridges to protect public 

safety and water quality while meeting access needs for both resource stewardship 

and the recreating public. Our Facilities program promotes the safe and energy-efficient use of agency infrastructure while emphasizing cost-effectiveness and a smaller environmental footprint through the use of green building techniques and materials. 

Managing Wildland Fires 

Our restoration efforts are partly in response to growing fire season severity, one 

of the greatest challenges facing the Forest Service. We continue to suppress in initial attack at very small sizes up to 98 percent of the fires we fight. However, the 

few fires that escape initial attack tend to get much larger much faster. Extreme 

fire behavior has become far more common. Firefighters are largely limited to protecting certain points around homes and communities. 

In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act, calling on Federal land managers to develop a joint 

wildland fire management strategy. Working with the Department of the Interior, 

the Forest Service took the opportunity to involve the entire wildland fire community in developing a joint long-term National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy. 

This strategy is the product of a collaborative effort between wildland fire organizations, land managers, and policy making officials representing Federal, State and 

local governments, Tribal interests, and nongovernmental organizations that builds 

on the successes of the National Fire Plan and other foundational documents. Phase 

I was completed in 2011 and outlines the national strategy to address wildland fire 

issues across the Nation. Phase II was completed in 2012 and provides a risk based 

framework for evaluating local, regional, and national alternatives for wildfire response and preparedness at a mix of different temporal and geographic scales. 

Our new strategy has three components: 

1. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.—More than a thousand postfire assessments show that fuels and forest health treatments are effective in reducing 

wildfire severity. Accordingly, our fuels treatments have grown; from 2001 to 

2011, the Forest Service treated about 27.6 million acres, an area larger than 

Virginia. We focus our treatments on high-priority areas in the wildland/urban 

interface, particularly near communities that are taking steps to become safer 

from wildfire, such as adopting the national Firewise program or developing 

community wildfire protection plans. 

2. Building fire-adapted human communities.—With more than 70,000 communities at risk from wildfire, the Forest Service is working through cross-jurisdictional partnerships to help communities become safer from wildfires, for example by developing community wildfire protection plans. Through the Firewise 

program, the number of designated Firewise communities-communities able to 

survive a wildfire without outside intervention-rose from 400 in 2008 to more 

than 700 in 2012. 

3. Responding appropriately to wildfire.—Most of America’s landscapes are 

adapted to fire; wildland fire plays a natural and beneficial role in many forest 

types. Where suppression is needed to protect homes and property, we focus on 

deploying the right resources in the right place at the right time. Using decision 

support tools, fire managers are making risk-based assessments to decide when 

and where to suppress a fire-and when and where to use fire to achieve management goals for long-term ecosystem health and resilience. 

Hazardous fuels reduction is an important part of protecting communities and infrastructure in the wildland/urban interface, and the materials removed can often 

be utilized as biofuels. Our Hazardous Fuels program therefore supports grants and 

other forms of assistance for wood-to-energy initiatives. We fund business plans and 

feasibility studies that help make a project more competitive for other sources of 

funding; we provide technical assistance to support project development or improve 

air quality, and we help develop financially viable approaches for building and sustaining facilities that convert wood to energy. 

13 

In FY 2014, the Forest Service will work with municipal water providers and electrical service utilities to leverage our funds for fuels and forest health treatments. 

For example, our new Restoration Partnerships program will support public-private 

partnerships for investing in projects to protect water supplies on the Colorado 

Front Range and elsewhere. Our Hazardous Fuels program complements activities 

conducted through Integrated Resource Restoration and the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program to reduce fuels, protect communities, and restore 

forested landscapes. Contracted services for fuels reduction provides jobs, as do the 

forest products and woody biomass utilization activities that result from fuels reduction and removal. 

Our budget request for FY 2014, taking the Suppression and FLAME line items 

together, fully covers the 10-year rolling average of annual amounts spent on suppression. Taken together with the Preparedness line item, our budget request reflects our emphasis on assessing strategic risks and improving operational decisionmaking for responding to wildland fires, including using fire, where appropriate, for 

resource benefits. Our efforts are expected to result in more effective and efficient 

use of Forest Service resources as well as the resources of our partners. 

Airtankers are a critical part of an appropriate response to wildfire, but the Forest Service’s fleet of large airtankers is old, with an average age of more than 50 

years. The cost of maintaining them is growing, as are the risks associated with 

using them. The Forest Service is implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization 

Strategy to replace our aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our FY 2014 

budget request includes $50 million to pay for the increased costs of modernizing 

the firefighting airtanker fleet. This is in addition to the $24 million requested in 

the FY 2013 budget for a total of $74 million proposed over the last two years to 

further enhance the agency’s ability to fight wildland fire. 

Cost Savings 

Since 2011, the Forest Service has conducted more than a thousand postfire assessments in areas where wildfires burned into previously treated sites. In 94 percent of the cases, our fuels and forest health treatments were determined to have 

changed fire behavior and/or helped firefighters control the fire. 

The Forest Service is also taking steps in other areas to cut our operating costs. 

For example: 

• Taking advantage of new technologies, we have streamlined and centralized our 

financial, information technology, and human resources operations to gain efficiencies and reduce costs. We will continue to work together with other USDA 

agencies under the Blueprint for Stronger Services to develop strategies for key 

business areas to provide efficiencies. 

• For the same reasons, we have integrated work across our deputy areas for National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, and Research and Development. For example, all three deputy areas have collaborated to develop the 

Southern Forest Futures project—the first comprehensive analysis of the future 

of Southern forests over the next 50 years. 

• In FY 2012, we began implementing a new Planning Rule that will reduce the 

length of time it takes to revise management plans, saving costs. We are also 

saving costs by streamlining our environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

• We are implementing measures to achieve $100 million in cost pool savings in 

FY 2013 and FY 2014 combined. 

• We have adopted new public-private partnership strategies for leveraging restoration funding. For example, over 10 years the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is expected to leverage $152.3 million in partner 

funding, about 62 cents for every Federal dollar spent. 

• We also signed an agreement to use municipal funds to restore fire-damaged 

national forest land in the municipal watershed of Denver, Colorado. Over five 

years, Denver Water is matching the Forest Service’s own $16.5 million investment in watershed restoration. We have signed similar agreements with Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, and with other cities on the Front Range in Colorado, including Aurora and Colorado Springs. 

• We are proposing a number of changes in our budget line items for FY 2014 

to better integrate accomplishments, to increase efficiencies in administration, 

and to make our program delivery more transparent. For example, combing the 

State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs under Wildland Fire Management will improve program management, reduce administrative complexity, and 

will assist with improved performance management. 

14 

• In accordance with sustainability and efficiency mandates, we are working to 

reduce our environmental footprint. We are acquiring more energy-efficient vehicles and using the latest technologies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 

and cut our electricity and natural gas costs at facilities. 

Future Outlook 

Our budget request focuses accordingly on America’s highest priorities for restoring ecosystems, strengthening communities and providing jobs, and managing 

wildland fire. We are developing a kind of land and resource management that efficiently and effectively addresses the growing extent and magnitude of the challenges we face, as well as the mix of values and benefits that Americans expect from 

their forests and grasslands. We will continue to lead the way in improving our administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness in mission delivery. 

Our research will continue to solve complex problems by creating innovative science 

and technology for the protection, sustainable management, and use of all forests, 

both public and private, for the benefit of the American people. Moreover, we are 

working ever more effectively to optimize our response to cross-cutting issues by integrating our programs and activities. 

The key to future success is to work through partnerships and collaboration. Our 

budget priorities highlight the need to strengthen service through cooperation, collaboration, and public-private partnerships that leverage our investments to reach 

shared goals. Through this approach, we can accomplish more work while also providing more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of generations to come. This 

concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions 

that you or the Committee Members have for me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, thank you. We’re very much aware that 

you are not the only one involved in preparing these budgets. 

Sometimes I always think we ought to bring OMB up here too and 

we can rage away at them as well because I think you can tell 

there is bipartisan concern up here. 

Let me ask you about a question that I think is central to this 

debate about getting the harvest up in America. Last week I was 

in John Day, Oregon in Grant County, where they have put together a collaborative for the national forest there, the Malheur 

National Forest. Part of this debate, and I gather you were a part 

of it a couple of weeks ago in the House, is a debate about what 

is most likely to produce an increase in the harvest in a sustained 

way. 

Is it going to be a collaborative approach, the way they’re doing 

it in John Day? We’ve been very involved in the work in setting 

it up. Or is it more likely that the harvest will get up in a sustained way by, in effect, taking Federal lands and putting them in 

private ownership? As you know there’s talk about a reserve or 

something to that nature. 

Which of those 2 approaches, in your view, is more likely to get 

the harvest up in a sustained way? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The collaborative approach. I think the record supports that. We’ve spent a lot of years in this country having the dialog, the debate, about how a national forest should be managed. 

Finally in the last few years we’ve been able to use collaborative, 

collaboration, in a way to bring people together that’s actually increased the amount of work, the restoration, the timber harvest on 

our national forests. That’s why I put out the accelerated restoration strategy last year, to be able to show that even with basically 

a flat, fixed budget that I believe we can continue to increase the 

amount of work getting done in the harvest. We were on pace to 

be able to do that. 

I think with our budget request we can quickly get back on pace. 

15 

The CHAIRMAN. Now the sequester, obviously, takes a toll. Lifting the sequester and coming up with a bipartisan alternative 

clearly will help. 

Is there any way short of that? Because it’s obviously not going 

to happen in the next 10 minutes, which is really what we need 

so the priorities can be arranged. I think you’d like to move in the 

direction of more collaboratives, perhaps more stewardship contracting. The staff has been going through a variety of programs, 

something I am not a big expert in, to find opportunities such as 

the cost pools account, for example. 

Are there ways in which—even in these constrained financial 

times—we can get the priorities changed? Senator Murkowski 

made essentially the same point. So we can get more into the timber harvest account? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have used up all my limited flexibilities to be able to do everything we could to be able to mitigate 

the impact of the sequester reductions, especially when we get 

those in the middle of the year. I guess we’ll have to wait and see 

how effective those are going to be. But I’ll tell you I’ve done everything I can to be able to use our limited flexibilities. 

In addition to that, if we could send a strong signal that stewardship contracting is going to be reauthorized so that not only our 

purchasers, our contractors but our employees can see that that’s 

going to continue to be a tool that’s available along with timber 

sale contracts. That will be very, very important. 

The other thing is to show support for collaboration. It takes a 

lot of work to keep people at the table, especially those that in the 

past have not been supportive of restoration or timber harvest on 

the national forests. Any signals that are sent to those groups that 

say, hey this isn’t the way we’re going to keep working I think is 

what it’s going to do is discourage those efforts. 

So those are a couple of things that we could—I would ask you 

to do right now to be able to help us get back on pace with our accelerated restoration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s do this. I mean, obviously the 

collaboratives, I think, are the way to go. It’s my understanding 

that the reserves that are being talked about are managed by a private entity under state law. That’s what’s being discussed by some. 

I gather that technically still provides for Federal ownership. 

But you think between collaboratives and that approach, collaborative is the way to go. Is that correct? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, that’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Let me ask you one other question then if I might. 

On the sequester, where there is so much frustration in terms of 

the communities and the Governors. What is the deadline for the 

states to return these funds to the Administration? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I tell you I regret it, the day I had 

to sign those letters and send it out to, you know, to the Governors. 

We’ve asked them to indicate if they want us to take the sequester 

out of Title II. We’ve asked for their response this month on that. 

Then once we receive that, we will then move forward to send 

a bill for collection to those states that choose not to use the Title 

16 

II funds. Then they’ll have a certain amount of time. It’s usually 

about 30 days before they need to respond to that bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. What’s going to happen if the states don’t return 

the funds because I think a lot of these communities just have no 

room, just no flexibility. What will happen then? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I’m not the expert here, but it’s my understanding 

that if the funds aren’t returned the day that they’re due that there 

will be penalties. There’s interest payments that will occur. But I— 

we can get back to you as to exactly what the process is on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would just again encourage you to find a way 

to minimize the harm to these communities. I was in them. This 

is—they’re walking on an economic tightrope now. 

I mean, they literally, in a lot of these instances, cannot fund 

basic law enforcement. There’s discussion about setting up citizens 

self-policing kinds of organizations. It is that serious of a problem. 

So I would just encourage you to look for ways to mitigate the 

harm, No. 1. 

I’d like to ask you to look through all of the accounts that strike 

me as having a possibility to have some reductions in order to help 

the timber harvest, the cost pool account, the minerals program, 

and the land ownership management program. We’d like you to 

look at all of those. 

On the basic proposition now we’ve clarified that you think 

collaboratives make more sense for the long term than have something that may be technical Federal ownership, but is managed by 

a private entity under state law which is clearly going to trigger 

a lot of those battles that we saw in the past. But we’ve got to do 

something now. We’re going to have the debate in terms of what 

to do for the future. 

You’ve convinced me that the collaborative route is the way to go. 

But we’ve got to get relief to these communities now otherwise 

they’re not going to be around. They’re not going to be around for 

us to have this approach with respect to the longer term kinds of 

ideas. 

So let me—I’ve gone over my time. I’m going to give colleagues 

a little extra time as well. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just add a final comment to the discussion here about Secure Rural Schools. Chief, it is adding insult to injury to these communities that, again, I’ve used the term there it’s an economic disaster for so many of them when they look at the uncertainty with 

the Secure Rural Schools funding and really, the inability to look 

anywhere else, anywhere else. 

In Ketchikan, my birth place, you know, we’ve had this conversation before. They live in the middle of the Tongass National Forest. 

It’s not as if there is developable land around them. It’s .03 percent 

of the land is available outside of what the Federal Government 

holds for them. 

So to suggest that not only we’re going to claw back the revenues 

that we’ve given you that you anticipated, that you budgeted for. 

We’re going to claw that back. If you can’t return that money then 

we’re going to ding you with penalties and fines that they further 

17 

can’t pay. For heaven’s sake. We have got to figure out a better 

path forward than that. 

We have got to figure out a way to avoid that because if they’ve 

got to return the dollars that they don’t have because they have 

been spent. Now they’re being assessed fines and late fees and penalties by their Federal Government. Wow. 

Let me ask a question following on. This relates to how we get 

the cut up, as we discussed at the last hearing a couple weeks ago. 

You were very clear. I felt you were very clear in that hearing that 

what we were going to see was an increase. 

So when in fact we are seeing a 15 percent reduction from year 

prior that doesn’t bode well with the words that you have used. So 

how? Why? Why the 15 percent reduction? 

Then as you explain to that—explain that to me if you can explain how this budget and these reductions will affect the Tongass 

transition plan and the Tongass integrated plan that we’ve been 

working on. We’ve got the implementation of several big sales coming up. The Big Thorne out on Wrangell Island. 

Tell me how and what this means for us, not only from the national perspective, but more local in my home State, where again, 

these folks are hanging on by their fingernails. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The 15 percent reduction in the timber harvest is 

reflected on what’s happening this year. With having a reduction 

that we had this year, especially in the middle of the year, over 

half of our, the funds that we have to do timber sale preparation 

go to administering the current contracts and then covering some 

of the fixed costs that we have no choice. So we only have 50 percent to be able to work on the next year’s contracts. 

So the whole 5 percent plus has to come out of that. So it’s going 

to result in fewer crews to be out there to be able to mark the timber. So not only does that impact what we can do this year, but 

it also, I expect, it will have a larger impact in FY’14. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you’re saying that the reductions will be 

even greater in 2014. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That’s what I reflect with this current budget. 

That was our estimate. That’s why you see the reduction in FY’14 

because of what’s happening this year. 

Now I admit these are conservative estimates because I’d much 

rather be able to come in here like we were after FY’12 and say 

we exceeded the self imposed target that we put out there. I hope 

that we can do a better job. We’re doing everything we can to be 

able to offset this. But as far as when I have to put out an estimate 

of what we’re going to see in FY’14, it has to factor in the impact 

that’s occurred, that’s occurring this year. 

Now we’re taking with the FY’14 budget, we can get back on 

track and for instance when you talk about the transition plan. It 

continues to be one of our priorities to be able to not only move forward with the Big Thorne and Wrangell. But at the same time to 

move forward with some work in second growth that is so essential 

for us to be able to show that in the future the timber harvest 

there in Southeast is going to be a mix of some old growth and also 

some second growth. Also to be able to move forward with some of 

the pellet plants that we’re hoping to get into place to be able to 

offset those high energy costs. 

18 

In addition to that with our limited resources this year we sent 

some additional money to do the road work for next year’s sell. So 

we’re doing what we can this year to be positioned to be able to 

get that harvest done next year. 

So those are the ways that we are approaching to be able to do 

what we can to be able to get back on track with our restoration 

strategy. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I think we would all agree that whether it’s 

roads or whether it’s a pellet plant, it doesn’t do any good to have 

the infrastructure if we don’t have the timber, if we don’t have the 

product that can be used for that pellet plant. You don’t need the 

road if we’re not going to be able to harvest that timber. You and 

I talk a lot about this transition to second growth. 

But if you can’t hang on until that timber is ready to be harvested you’ve got a dead or dying industry that cannot be resuscitated. I look at what you’re proposing for the national sales. I see 

how that impacts us at the state level. 

Then I look at the budget category for land acquisition and you’re 

telling me that on the one hand because of sequestration and the 

funding and the budget, we just can’t make it happen. Yet we’re 

seeing a 72 percent increase in funding for land acquisition again, 

with no corresponding increase in staffing to manage that. So I’m 

just not seeing how this all balances out. 

I’ve gone over my time. But hopefully we’ll have a moment for 

or an opportunity for a second. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will definitely have a second round. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Following up on the question by Senator Murkowski, why aren’t the replacement of the fire fighting fonds and 

activities to combat the pine beetle problem offset by the land acquisition funds? Why is that not a good idea? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, our request with the land acquisition and 

also for our legacy program for conservation easements. 

First of all, it reflects from what we’re hearing from the public 

to acquire these relatively small parcels of land that are key in 

holdings, not only to ensure that the public has access to be able 

to get up on to the national forest. But it also just reduces the 

amount of boundary location we have to deal with. It eliminates 

the problem that if we want to go out and do a timber sell, we no 

longer have to go out there and spend a lot of time citing that 

boundary. We can just go in and treat the whole area. 

So our land acquisition program, almost in every case, it actually 

reduces our administration costs. It gives us more flexibility. Then, 

as you well know, there’s more and more interest on the national 

forest for more people to get out there and recreate. 

The private landowners sometimes get tired of those impacts. So 

we continue to see more and more private landowners want to close 

their lands so that the public can’t get to the national forests. So 

this program is focused on being able to also acquire those key access points. This is always from willing sellers. We have people 

lined up for both the acquisition programs and also for the conservation easements. 

Senator JOHNSON. Good. 

19 

Chief Tidwell, the reserve accounts established under the 

FLAME Act have been operating for several years now with the 

goal of preventing the practice of ‘‘fire borrowing’’ to cover costs associated with wild fires. But last year the Forest Service had to 

transfer money from non fire accounts to pay for fire suppression. 

Are the FLAME reserve accounts not operating as they were intended? Can we expect to see additional transfers this year if we 

experience another high cost fire season? 

Mr. TIDWELL. From my view the Flame Act has not had the success I think we were all hoping for, for a variety of reasons. So like 

last year we had to transfer $440 million. To put that into perspective, over the last 10 years we’ve transferred $2.7 billion. 

In addition, you know, to that as to what we’re looking at for this 

fire season and we’re predicting a similar fire season to last year. 

So in all likelihood we’re going to have to end up transferring, you 

know, a similar amount of money if we have the same level fire 

season. We’re hoping that it moderates. But we’re going to be prepared for similar fire season to last year. 

So at this point I can anticipate coming back up here asking for 

your approval to be able to transfer the funds. 

Senator JOHNSON. The Forest Service Restoration Strategy called 

for increasing the pace and scale of restoration in the national forests. What specific steps has the Forest Service taken since the 

Restoration Strategy was published in February 2012 to increase 

efficiency of implementing NEPA, timber sales, and stewardship 

contracts? To what extent will those increased efficiencies be able 

to offset the reduction in funding from the sequester? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’ll start with using the project there in 

the Black Hills with that adaptive EIS that covered the 248,000 

acres, one document that positions that forest to be able to go forward and do the work. That demonstrates how we can be more efficient in our NEPA processes. 

The second thing that we’re going to continue to work on we’ve 

put our new rule out for—with the objection process. So that we’ve 

replaced our old appeals process with an objection process that I 

think also provides better opportunity for the public to be able to 

participate in, you know, in our project development. But also it 

will speed up the decision making on that. 

The other thing, we’re working with all of our regions across the 

country to be able to maximize efficiencies as to how we do our sell 

prep. We used to spend a lot of time, you know, marking individual 

trees. We got a lot of parts of this country today that those trees 

don’t have a lot of value. But they need to be harvested. So we’re 

changing the way that we do some of our sell prep to continue to 

be able to reduce our costs. 

These are the sort of things that we’ve been working on to be 

able to continue to accelerate the pace basically without asking for 

more money. 

The other thing is stewardship contracting. It is the right tool, 

especially when we’re dealing with some of our forests where we 

need to remove a lot of the smaller diameter material that doesn’t 

have a lot of value. If we can do that through a stewardship contract to be able to use the value of the merchantable material to 

20 

offset the cost of removing the smaller diameter stuff. We can’t do 

that with the timber sale contract. 

So a stewardship contract is just another essential way for us to 

be able to continue to, you know, accelerate our restoration. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

My time is expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso is next. 

I’m going to have to be in the Finance Committee. So I think 

what we’ll do is we’ll have Senator Barrasso next. Senator Udall 

has arrived. We’re very appreciative of the fact that he can stay a 

bit and chair. 

Senator Udall, I know there’s great interest in a second round 

with the Chief. So I will try to get back as soon as I can. So we’ll 

go with Senator Barrasso. 

Next Senator Udall for his questions. Senator Murkowski to 

begin our second round. Then hopefully I’ll be back fairly shortly. 

But if you would, let’s ensure that at least other members who 

want to come and myself can get for their first round and I can get 

back for a second round as well. 

Alright, Senator Barrasso. 

Yes, we can keep talking there’s no shortage of that in the Senate. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to note the House and the Senate have 

already passed their respective budgets and I appreciate you being 

here today. The timing of the Administration’s budget is another 

example, in my opinion, of the President leading from behind. I 

share your concerns. 

The concerns I hear from you, from the agency employees and 

various stakeholder groups who work with the Forest Service. The 

concern is with the overall inability of the Forest Service to actually manage our forests. Under this Administration the Forest 

Service is chasing wilderness designations, climate change, land acquisition and wildlife management. If our sick and decaying forests 

have any hope to recover the Forest Service really must return to 

its roots of management and proactively improving the health of 

our forests. 

Also, this committee led by Senators Wyden and Murkowski have 

oversight responsibility. They’re working together on that. As such, 

I can’t support the Administration’s integrated resource restoration 

of the IRR program until the ability of Congress to maintain its 

oversight role is fully addressed. 

I have a number of questions. I wanted to start with Good Neighbor Authority. At this same time, at this same budget hearing last 

year we spoke about and agreed upon the useful tool, the Good 

Neighbor Authority would be and both for the states and the Forest 

Service. My home state of Wyoming needs and wants the ability to 

work with the Forest Service and the Forest Service desperately 

needs every tool it can get to actively manage and restore forest 

health. 

Along with Senator Udall, who is here chairing the committee, 

and Mike Lee and Tim Johnson, who is here as well this morning, 

once again introduce the Good Neighbor Authority Act. With biparVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
21 

tisan support of this committee it’s time, I believe, for the Administration to fully support this common sense and much needed legislation. Will you personally commit to engaging on Good Neighbor 

Authority? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, yes. In fact, we do support expanding the 

Good Neighbor Authority. We do have a few minor technical adjustments we’d like to work with you on based on our experience 

so we can make it even more effective, more efficient. 

But you’re exactly right. This is another tool that allows us to 

bring more capacity to be able to do the work across larger landscapes. At the same time, you know, it increases the cost of our 

work. So I appreciate your support for helping us to be able to 

move forward with this. 

Senator BARRASSO. I’m glad to hear that because as you know 

the Forest Service is going to be testifying on the bill on April 25th. 

I wanted to get to another topic that others have discussed and 

it has to do with the Forest Service air tanker availability. Like 

many on the committee, I’m concerned with the current status of 

air tanker availability to fight wild fires. We all agree in these 

times of constrained budgets that the Forest Service is going to 

need to get more work accomplished within the existing budget resources. 

So the agency needs to focus on how to effectively and efficiently 

deliver the required annual fire retardant in the most cost effective 

and safe manner. So I’m going to include an air tanker related 

question for the record. I just would ask that you commit to getting 

that answer addressed in a timely manner. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, I will. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

In terms of grazing management the Forest Service budget proposes additional fees of a dollar per AUM, animal unit month for 

family farmers and ranchers to recover the costs associated with 

NEPA analysis and issuing grazing permits. You know when I 

talked to both ranchers and agency employees back in Wyoming, 

they attribute the increase of cost to renew a permit actually to excessive litigation against the agency. I’m wondering what percentage of the Forest Service system line item budget is actually spent 

on litigation, if you know and you may not know. 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, I can get back to you with the 

amount that we spend as far as the legal costs. I can—we can probably give you an estimate about the time that we spend on it. 

Mr. TIDWELL. But it’s one of the things why we’ve been focused 

for years to be able to get the NEPA down on our grazing allotments to alleviate some of that concern from some litigation. 

It’s one of the reasons why we had to make some tough choices 

in this budget. You know, the idea of increasing the fees for, you 

know, for our ranchers, you know. That’s a hard thing. 

But without that it’s going to be so difficult for us to be able to 

do the administration that needs to be done to ensure so that the 

opponents to grazing that we have a good response because we can 

show we’ve done the monitoring. We can show that the range is in 

good condition. We need to be able to do that. 

So that’s one of the reasons why we’ve proposed this idea to be 

able to generate some additional money to be able to really focus 

22 

on that administration on the monitoring with an understanding 

that the NEPA work is going to continue to probably have to be 

postponed just like we’ve been having to do that for about the last, 

I’m going to say, 10 years now. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is the Forest Service doing anything to recover the costs associated with some of these excessive lawsuits? 

Mr. TIDWELL. No, we do not have any authority to recover those 

costs. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do I have time for one more question, Mr. 

Chairman? Thanks. 

It’s on timber management and other Senators have addressed 

that the Forest Service announced that a result of the 5 percent 

sequester cut that timber production would be cut by 15 percent. 

So, I mean, it just makes me think if Congress increased funding 

specifically for timber production by 10 percent, you know, could 

the Forest Service then increase total board feet by 30 percent if 

you’ve got to use the proportionality. 

So I guess just some clarification. 

Does the Forest Service include the areas burned by wild fires 

as acres treated when you report those numbers to Congress? 

We’re just trying to dissect out how the numbers are all reported. 

Mr. TIDWELL. When we report the total acres where we’ve used 

fire to restore ecosystems, we do report that. Then we actually 

identify how many acres have been treated using fire and how 

many acres have been treated by using timber harvest, mechanical 

treatments. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. 

I think I’m going to maybe, submit some written questions to 

kind of try to dissect through those numbers to see how that all 

works. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. That’s quite alright. 

Senator UDALL. Feel free to ask some additional questions if 

you’d like. 

Chief, I’m going to use my time now. Good to see you. Thank you 

for making the trip up to the hill. 

I’d like to start out with wild fire questions as well. I don’t have 

to tell you that we had 2 deadly fires last summer that gained national attention, the Waldo Canyon and the High Park fires. They 

were declared national disasters. 

Tens of thousands of people were displaced. About a million Coloradan’s water supplies were threatened. We’re still dealing with 

the aftermath of that. 

In that context and I know this is a theme you’ve been hearing 

a lot today, I’ve noticed that within the wild land fire management 

budget the hazardous fuels sees a 37 percent cut. That concerns me 

particularly because the number of people living in fire prone areas 

is increasing as are fuel loads. The importance of mitigation is well 

documented. 

Your own report, Increasing the Pace of Restoration, a job creation on National Forests, has a goal of treating more acreage 

every year. Can you talk about how you plan to meet the goals and 

23 

the strategy while protecting the areas most at risk for wild fire 

with such a large reduction in funding? 

Mr. TIDWELL. This budget reflects a reduction in the total acres 

that we would treat. However we are going to continue to treat the 

highest priority acres around our communities. Our hazardous 

fuels funding will be focused on treating only the wild land urban 

interface and to be able to work where we—the communities are 

working with us. 

It’s one of the things that we found with our hazardous fuel 

treatments is that it’s essential that if we’re treating the national 

forest the ideal situation is that the private, the adjacent private 

lands, are also the works being done there. So it really maximizes 

the effectiveness. That’s how we’re going to, you know, prioritize 

this work. 

In addition to that we’ll use our restoration funds, an integrated 

resource restoration, to be able to do the hazardous fuels work in 

the back country outside of the wild land urban interface in conjunction with our restoration. So we’re still going to be doing hazardous fuels work out there. It will just be part of these larger 

projects. 

This money will be focused just on the wild land urban interface. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that clarification. I’m not going to 

continue on and have that conversation with you. But I hear you 

saying you’re focusing on what we call the red zones of the WUI, 

the Wild Urban Interface. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. So thank you for that clarification. 

In my State and you heard Senator Murkowski and other of my 

colleagues talk about how critical the forest products industry is in 

the improving of the health of our forests while providing jobs. In 

my State you have rural communities like Montrose and Delta, 

who are playing, again, an important role in that regard. I want 

to thank you and your team for your efforts to implement 3 long 

term stewardship contracts in Colorado that have already released 

fuels around communities while providing valuable forest products 

such as biomass electricity in Pagosa Springs and Gypsum, landscaping materials in Colorado Springs and wood pallets in Pueblo. 

Those are good news stories. 

But I also want to echo the concerns of my colleagues about the 

reduction in timber targets from 2.6 billion to 2.3 billion as I read 

it. That’s board feet. The effect that could have on our still struggling timber industry and our capacity to do more on the ground. 

So I’m just making that as a statement. You don’t have to respond. 

Let me move to air tankers. The effect they have on the initial 

attack which means they keep small fires from becoming catastrophic mega fires and helping our ground crews put those fires 

out is well understood. When you fight a fire you’re going to war. 

Given we’re facing another potentially severe fire season what 

can you do to ensure me that we’re going to have the next generation air tankers in the air during this fire season? 

Mr. TIDWELL. In addition to the legacy air tankers that we issued 

the contract for a few weeks ago, in the next few weeks we’ll issue 

the contract for up to 7 next generation aircraft that will hopefully 

be able to work this year. In addition to that we’ll continue to rely 

24 

on the MAFFS units that we used so much last year along with 

the VLATs that we also used and then also to bring the aircraft 

down from Canada and Alaska to ensure that we have the aircraft 

that we need to be able to respond to these fires. 

As we move forward with the next generation in aircraft and 

hopefully with the C27Js, it will reduce the reliance on the MAFFS 

units and to be able to ensure that we have that initial attack capacity with our air tankers. 

Senator UDALL. On a scale of 1 to 10 how confident are you? Ten 

being the most confident that we’re going to have the air assets we 

need? 

Mr. TIDWELL. For this year? I’m at a 10 that we’ll have probably 

24 to 25 large air tankers available this year with between the 

MAFFS and the planes from Alaska and in Canada along with the 

contract that we’ll have. 

Senator UDALL. Let me move to some of the discussion about sequester and the transferring of funds and so on. 

Given rising suppression costs and the fact that the agency 

spends nearly half of its budget on wild fire management which I 

think my colleague, Senator Johnson, alluded to. In so doing you’re 

transferring funds from other programs. What’s the impact on 

these other important programs? Obviously fire response is critical, 

but it’s, I don’t have to tell you it’s not the only mission of the Forest Service. 

Mr. TIDWELL. No, but the sequester had an impact on that and 

reduced the suppression funding. It also reduced the preparedness 

funding. Now we’re going to mitigate that the impact of preparedness funding, I mean, if you just look at it it reduces our crews by 

about 500 firefighters and, you know, 50 to 70 fire engines and less 

money for aircraft. 

But the way we’ll offset that is that we’ll do more prepositioning 

of resources. Then we’ll use more call when needed resources, 

whether that’s contract crews, more contract helicopters, the call 

when needed and if we need to call when needed large air tankers. 

The problem with that a call when needed contract runs anywhere 

from one and a half to 2 times as much as our exclusive use. 

So we’ll start off the season with less resources, but right at the 

start even with the moderate fire season we’re going to spend more 

on suppression because of this reduced level of preparedness to 

start. 

So I wish I could give you a better answer. But because of sequester, it’s probably just going to cost us more money when it 

comes to fire suppression. But we will respond. We’ll have the resources that we need. 

Now in addition to that we’ve already talked about the impacts, 

you know, to the restoration work, you know, to timber harvest. We 

also are going to have to, you know, close some of the lightly used 

recreational facilities. These are usually the—some smaller campgrounds, smaller boat ramps. We’re looking at somewhere around 

600 of those facilities, but that’s out of close to 20,000 recreational 

facilities that we manage. 

We’re also looking at opportunities to do shortened seasons. 

We’re getting some good snows out in your country that will actuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
25 

ally shorten the season. So that may help, you know, impact some 

of the off—of having to close facilities. 

So the folks are working hard. We’re also working with communities to see if there’s a way to get a volunteer group or something 

to come in and do the minimum maintenance that’s necessary to 

be able to maintain these facilities. But those are the impacts that, 

some of the impacts, that we’re dealing with through the rest of 

this year because of the shift in the budget we received. 

Senator UDALL. Let me ask you one last question and the bulk 

of the answer I’d ask you to provide for the record since I see Senator Franken here. Senator Murkowski has another round of questions. 

But your Rocky Mountain Research Station reviewed 2 other Colorado fires, the Hayman fire which is unfortunately infamous in 

our state. Ten years ago it occurred and the Fourmile Canyon fire. 

Both of those reviews showed conclusively that one of the most critical factors in protecting homes in a wild fire is the proactive work 

that homeowners do and the so called HIZ, the Home Ignition 

Zone. 

Would you, again for the record, but maybe briefly, 30 seconds 

or so, you could talk about what you’ve been doing to support these 

critical efforts on private property. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is part of our cohesive strategy where we’re 

working with the states and local fire to be able to inform private 

landowners, inform county commissions, county supervisors that 

the steps that can be taken to make, to help our landowners understand what they can do on their land can make all the difference 

when we get a fire. I’m going to tell you we have hundreds of thousands of examples of where if a homeowner has taken the steps to 

remove the brush, the trees, from around their homes. The 

woodpiles away from their homes and using non flammable materials for decks and that sort of things, those homes survive when 

a wild fire comes into a community 

That’s the sort of thing we have to continue to work on along 

with reducing those fuels on the national forests that are around 

our communities. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, I would note that if you move a propane 

tank from close proximity to your home that’s a very good idea for 

obvious reasons. The studies also show that the most important 

tools you can deploy are a weedwacker and a rake. A chain saw actually is of less use. It’s pretty simple things people can do. 

Thank you for being here again today. 

Senator Franken is recognized. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to remember that weedwacker and a rake. That’s a good thing to remember. 

Thank you, Chief, for being here. 

I want to talk to you about the boundary water canoe area 

which, as you know, is spectacular wilderness area between Minnesota and Canada up in Northwestern Minnesota. Now for historical reasons over 93,000 acres of school trust lands that belong to 

the state are enclosed in this Federal wilderness area which means 

they cannot contribute to the economic development which support 

Minnesota schools. There are a few possible ways that this problem 

can be fixed. 

26 

The Forest Service can purchase the state lands from Minnesota 

or the Forest Service and that money would go into the trust fund 

or the Forest Service can take ownership of the state lands inside 

the boundary waters and give up ownership of lands outside the 

boundary waters in exchange with the State of Minnesota. A third 

approach would be a hybrid of those 2. 

In fact, Minnesota is working with the Superior National Forest 

on this issue. I think your support and attention to this matter 

would be important to facilitate a resolution. Would you commit to 

meet today to working with me, the State of Minnesota and the Superior National Forest so we can resolve this decades old problem? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, you have my commitment. This is a perfect example of where probably a combination of land exchange and 

maybe some acquisition can not only help out the state to be able— 

so they can generate additional revenue off of their land, but at the 

same time to be able to maintain the purpose of the boundary waters area. So you have my commitment to work with you to be able 

to move forward with this. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Chief, you and I in previous hearings have talked about climate 

change. You told me your scientists are telling you that climate 

change is exacerbating wild fires. Today I want to ask you about 

some of the other challenges that climate change presents to our 

forests. In particular invasive species like the bark beetle. Senator 

Udall has done a lot of work on the pine beetle in Colorado. 

As you know the bark beetle is normally kept in check by cold 

winters that kill its larvae. But as winters get warmer the bark 

beetle is surviving at higher altitudes and destroying more forest. 

Again Senator Udall has been working on the pine beetle in some 

Colorado forest. The warmer weather is causing the mountain pine 

beetle to go from reproducing once a year to reproducing twice a 

year. In a little over a decade this mountain pine beetle has killed 

more than 70,000 square miles of forest which is equivalent to the 

entire State of Washington. 

When you develop your budget, Chief, are you taking into account future climate change impact? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We do that through the work that the forests are 

doing in conjunction with our research and development branch. 

We’re fortunate to have a group of scientists that have been studying the effects of a changing climate on vegetation. So we’ve already started in factoring that in to our decisions. 

To realize that the ecosystems we have today, the mix of species 

we have today, may not be what we need to have in the future. So 

by understanding how this climate is changing and how it’s affecting the vegetation, we’re factoring that into our decisions so that 

our forests in the future are going to be more resilient to be able 

to handle the stresses of a changing climate. So we factor that into 

our planning that we’re doing. It’s part of our new planning rule 

requirement. 

Then also our scientists are working directly with our land managers so that they understand what they need to do differently. 

They need to understand that we need to mix up this even age 

stand, the lodgepole that we have throughout the West instead of 

having millions of acres of basically all lodgepole that’s all the 

27 

same age. We’ve got to find ways to break that up because in the 

future when we have infestations usually they just hit the older 

mature trees and leave the younger trees. The condition we have 

out West is that so much of it’s been, you know, just an even age. 

We also need to understand the impacts of species like white 

bark pine. That in the past we never had to worry about bark beetle hitting white bark pine because it grows at such high elevations 

where it’s always been cold enough that the beetles were never a 

problem. Today we understand what we need to do differently with 

white bark pine to be able to maintain that species with this 

changing climate and having to deal with bark beetles. 

The other things going on is with the invasives in the East. With 

the emerald ash borer that was introduced to this country a few 

decades ago it’s on a path to eliminate all ash trees in the Eastern 

United States. It’s already made it into Southern Canada. In the 

past cold winters would have stopped a species like emerald ash 

borer, you know, probably where it didn’t get much farther north 

than, you know, just maybe in Pennsylvania. But we’re actually 

seeing it now move into Canada. 

We need to continue to do the research so that we understand 

what we can do to control, biologic control, of those types of species. 

So that we don’t end up with ash trees like we have with the 

American chestnut. Those are a couple of things that we’re continuing to work on. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I see my time is up. 

I just want to thank you for your help when we had the big blow 

that brought down some timber in Northern Minnesota and in the 

Chippewa National Forest. I want to thank you for your help in 

making it, our timber industry, able to harvest that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’d like to just comment on that. When we 

talk about the effects of a changing climate one of the things that 

we see is more erratic weather, more of these extreme disturbance 

events. So your part of the country where we used to, once in a 

while, we’d have a big wind storm that would come through and 

we’d have to be able to respond to it to be able to get in there and 

clean up the down and dead timber. 

We now recognize today that we need to plan for that every year. 

So that we’ve actually put it through our program of work each 

year for especially that part of the country to be prepared to set 

aside funds to be able to respond to the basically the next impact, 

the next disaster. So that we have the resources to quickly get in 

there and clean up that timber before it creates another insect and 

disease problem. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you for your response during that. It 

was good talking. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Franken. Thank you for including Colorado’s situation in your remarks. 

Let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Murkowski, for 

her second round. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

28 

Chief, in discussion going back and forth here about how the 

interagency model works with states that mobilize to provide the 

resources in when we have wild fire incidents. Alaska, obviously, 

plays a key role in all of this particularly with respect to the air 

tanker support. You’ve noted that. 

Now for decades it’s my understanding that the master cooperative fire agreement has provided this mechanism, for among other 

things, the billing and reimbursement between the states, the 

USDA, Forest Service and other Federal agencies to facilitate the 

mobilization of these suppression resources. Under that agreement 

state resources dispatched out of state, regardless of jurisdiction, 

have been submitting their billing package to Forest Service at the 

Albuquerque center for payment. It’s my understanding then that 

beginning this year the Administration is no longer going to use 

single point interstate billing. States will now be forced to figure 

out how and who to bill when responding to Federal jurisdictional 

fire outside of their own State. 

This is news to me. I guess the question to you is why is the Administration ending a system that, I think, has been relatively efficient in mobilizing these suppression resources? I’m going to put 

out there the concern that I have. We’ve been dealing with some 

of our just aviation support folks up in Alaska, people that will fly, 

cruise around, on a contract basis. The billing system with MDOI 

has been fouled up to the point where operators are calling me to 

try to get paid for services that they have rendered 9 months prior, 

12 months prior. 

So I’m looking at this and all the bells and whistles are going off 

saying, is this a good thing? Why are we doing it? Why are we fixing something that apparently I hadn’t heard was broken? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’m not aware of that, but I will get back 

to you on it. I’ll look into it. The points that you’ve made that our 

master agreements work so well so that folks, whenever they’re 

called they can just respond. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. They’ve always had the confidence that yes, they’ll 

be reimbursed for their costs. You know, I’ll get back to you. I 

know we’re constantly looking at our processes to be able to find 

more efficiencies to be able to save some of the overhead costs, but 

then also to be able to pay those bills faster. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Because those folks, they need their money. They 

can’t—I hate to hear when you say folks go for months without getting their payments. So I will look into that and I’ll get back to you 

on it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate it if you would do so 

quickly because as we go into the fire season if states aren’t really 

sure where they submit their billing you would hate to think that 

somebody is going to hold back or defer because they’re worried 

about where their reimbursement is going to come from. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The timeliness of that. So if you can address that, I would appreciate it. 

A couple more parochial matters here. 

29 

I’m going to be going to Ketchikan in a couple weeks and sitting 

down with some of the air taxi operators that are there. What I’m 

hearing from folks there is that the Forest Service is reducing the 

permit allocations in the Misty Fjords National Monument and 

Trader’s Cove. What they’re doing is they’re reducing the number 

of allocations that would allow for landings within Misty Fjords by 

20 to 30 percent for each air operator. 

Now you’ve sat here this morning and told us that hey, it’s all 

about, you know, the tourism dollars that come in. Iin Ketchikan, 

as you well know, this is a timber community that is no longer a 

timber community. They’re trying to find something else so they’re 

turning to tourism. Yet, now the National—the Forest Service is 

limiting the opportunities for tourism for these taxi operators. 

As you know, the monument is accessible only by water or by air. 

So again, I’m going to be meeting with these folks in a couple 

weeks. I would like to know that you can give me a commitment 

that the Forest Service is going to reconsider this decision that 

would reduce these allocation numbers. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we need to diversify the economy there in 

Southeast Alaska. I know you’ve been supportive of that. We need 

to get the integrated wood products industry back to be part of that 

diversification. But as you’ve mentioned yes, tourism is a big part 

of it. 

This is when I apologize, but I’ll have to look into this and get 

back to you. I’ll make sure that we do that this week. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Great. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So you have our response and what we possibly 

can do as we go forward with this. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That would be important to me if I can get 

that information and your review of that prior to, I think, it’s like 

the 24th of April there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Then one last. This is also an effort for me 

to reduce the volume of mail that comes to me from constituents. 

This relates to an area outside of Wrangell, Alaska on its Stikine 

River. There is an area known as Anan Creek which has premier 

bear viewing opportunities. 

Again, Wrangell, a community that, you know, I use the expression all the time these communities are hanging on by their fingernails. I’m not sure Wrangell has any fingernails left. So they’re 

looking also for their tourism opportunities. 

The bear viewing area there at Anan Creek is again, pretty phenomenal. The problem that exists is that boaters who want to go 

up the Anan Creek Trail can’t tie up anywhere because there is no 

float. There is no docking. Apparently it’s a little bit of a hazard. 

I know that we’re dealing with budgets. I know that things are 

tight all over. But again, if what you’re trying to tell me here is 

that we’re going to where we’re not going to be focusing as much 

on the multiple use. We’re going to see timber harvest to continue 

to drop at the same time we’re going to increase tourism opportunities. 

I think that the Forest Service needs to look at how you might 

be able to allow for tiny slivers with minimal impact. Anan Creek, 

I think, is clearly one of those. I don’t know whether you’ve had 

an opportunity to be briefed on this. If not I would understand 

30 

that, but would ask also that you have your folks take a look at 

this. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s my understanding that yeah, if you tie up 

there your boat gets beat up in the rocks pretty easily. It’s an area 

that I want to work with you. I know the region will want to work 

to be able to find a way to be able to put a dock in there. I understand it would have to be one that would be taken out each year. 

But we do that in a lot of places. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. There’s systems in place now that you can retract 

a dock and then put it back out. So it’s one of the things that I’ll 

contact the region to see what we could do to maybe, be able to 

move forward with, you know, putting a dock there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, well I would appreciate that. Then 

again, if you can get back with me on the Misty Fjords issue. 

I’ve got one more quick question, Mr. Chairman. Then I’m 

wrapped up if you’re OK. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. I have additional questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to go ahead first. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Alright. This is the last one for you. This 

relates to the inventoried road less. 

As you know the U.S. Court of Appeals trucked down the decision to exempt the Tongass from the national road less decision. 

This is going to remove some 9 million acres in Southeast out of 

the state’s timber base. But in addition to that, as troubling as that 

is, it causes me concern because it really does complicate efforts to 

build electrical transmission lines. As you know, all of Southeast is 

predominately powered by hydropower but you’ve got to be able to 

put those transmission lines in. 

The response that I get back is well, the road less rule doesn’t 

prohibit you from putting in this transmission lines. You just have 

to do it by helicopter. Anybody that’s tried to put in a transmission 

line by helicopter in Southeastern Alaska knows that you have now 

made it effectively cost prohibitive. 

So it limits our ability with energy, renewable energy development, access to mineral areas. You know the impact to the economy. So my question to you is how much does it cost the Forest 

Service to—and this, I guess, in both in time and in staff to deal 

with the administrative demands of implementing the inventory 

road less within Southeast Alaska? We have any idea? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, I don’t have a figure off the top of my 

head, you know, Senator. But it’s, you know, the reason we have, 

you know. I’ll go back to 2001 road less areas that these were areas 

for the most part had never been developed. It hadn’t had—it 

didn’t have a lot of roads, hardly any roads in them. They were 

places that we heard from the public that there was strong interest 

to be able to maintain these intact ecosystems. 

With that being said the rule does allow, you know, flexibility. 

Where I have not worked in Southeast Alaska I’ve worked in a lot 

of other parts of the country where we’ve built power lines using 

helicopters. Often it becomes the best way to be able to put in, especially, the larger towers. 

31 

So I’d like to for us to be able to get some analysis done to be 

able to really look at what is—is it truly cost prohibitive or is it 

just some additional cost. But to be able to do it in a way that we 

can expand, you know, the energy transmission up there in Southeast Alaska. Because that’s such a key part of our transition strategy to be able to reduce the energy costs that we need to be able 

to find a way to transmit that electricity. 

So that’s what I’d like to focus on is how we can find a way to 

be able to do that but at the same time to be able to protect the 

road less characteristics of those lands. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chief, I would invite you up anytime. In 

fact, I’d like to take you on some of these trips. I’d like to take you 

out to Angoon where they’re paying 51 cents a kilowatt/hour. 

I’d like to take you over to some of these communities that can 

practically see where the transmission lines are but they can’t get 

to the next community. So they are paying double, triple, quadruple what the next village is paying for their renewable, hydropower electricity that is generated and to fly over these areas. 

It’s one thing to put, to utilize, a helicopter to put a transmission 

line in in a place like Wyoming or a place like Oregon. But the 

Tongass National Forest is pretty much, you find me a flat piece 

of land, you find me an area that’s not a mountainside where 

you’re blasting into rock. The only place that I can think of is out 

there on the beaches. 

It is a very unique terrain. The beauty of being able to provide 

energy to the people there in Southeast is we’ve got abundant 

hydro resource. But you’ve got to be able to put in a transmission 

line. 

So I would ask you on this issue do not make the assumption 

that because you can utilize a helicopter in other parts of the country to put a transmission line in that’s the same operation in 

Southeastern Alaska. It just belies the geography. It belies the topography. 

So if you’re thinking that this is reasonable. I need to take you 

on a field trip. I will promise to do so. I think the folks that work 

for you up there know how extraordinarily difficult this is. 

If we can’t get around that our communities will be choked off. 

We’ve already been choked off from our timber harvest and now we 

will be choked off because we cannot afford the energy and the 

power. They cannot afford the power in these communities. 

We’ve got to be able to build these transmission lines. We’ve got 

to have some help around the road less that is strangling our opportunity economic development. The tourists want to come, but if 

there’s no lights for your hotel they’re not going to come. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Chief, I can tell you that the Murkowski excursions to Alaska are 

very educational. I would encourage that. 

I want to ask you about 2 other areas that I haven’t touched on 

today relating to getting the harvest up, Chief. One is what came 

up constantly during my swing through Eastern Oregon a week 

ago. That is the National Environmental Policy Act. 

What I understand from the agency is that one of the reasons 

that the timber target went down is the agency implemented many 

32 

of the projects for which NEPA and planning had been done and 

planning hasn’t been completed for new projects. So what the concern was, as I was making my way through Eastern Oregon, is why 

the agency can’t implement projects and also continue to plan for 

new projects in future years. 

So my question really is is there some way to accelerate NEPA 

efforts or to streamline the program? In other words, you’ve heard 

me say repeatedly, I want to keep our key environmental priorities. 

I think we can do that consistent with getting the harvest up. But 

is there a way to accelerate or streamline the NEPA efforts beginning right away so the agency can meet that target of 3 billion 

board feet in fiscal year 2014? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we’ve been working on those efforts. It’s 

first of all to take a look at the entire landscape so that we do an 

environmental assessment or an EIS for much larger acres to get 

away from the 5 to 10 thousand acres and look at these hundreds 

of thousands of acres and do one document. 

The other key part is through the collaborative efforts like you 

have there in the Blues there in Eastern Oregon and they’re at 

Malheur. Because of that work we can reduce the amount of the 

number of alternatives that need to be considered because people 

work together and come to agreement about the type of work that 

needs to be done. Then we build the necessary mix of alternatives 

to be able to go forward and be able to address the impacts and 

make the decision. 

So by taking this landscape scale approach, using our 

collaboratives to address a lot of the issues as we move forward 

with doing the analysis. That’s the way that we’re going to be able 

to get more work done. 

The other thing is through our stewardship contracts. So that 

when we issue a contract to someone for 10 years they can rely 

that they’re either going to have the work to do, the jobs are going 

to be created or that the Forest Service is going to have to then 

reimburse them. Because under that 10-year contract we’re required to get our part of the job done so that they can get their 

work done and the jobs are delivered. 

So those are the ways that we’re moving forward. Yes, we’ve had 

to slow down a little bit this year with less resources, less crews. 

You know, this summer it will be out, you know, marking some of 

the sells. But the real NEPA efficiencies that we’ve been putting 

into place, they’re just now starting to come onboard. That’s why 

that I have the confidence that we can get back on track with our 

restoration strategy and actually do what the work that needs to 

be done. 

There in your State, in Eastern Oregon, my folks tell me that to 

really get on top of what we need to do we probably need to double 

the number of acres that we’re currently treating there. That 

through these collaboratives there’s support to be able to do that. 

That’s what it will take to actually restore those systems so that 

there’s less impact from the large fires that we’ve had in the past. 

I can go on. There’s other states where we have this level of support to be able to do the work. That’s what we have available for 

us today. 

33 

If we can just stay the course on this collaborative approach to 

be able to actually restore these forests in the way we’re there. 

There is strong support for it. At the same time it’s producing tens 

of thousands of jobs. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m going to direct the staff and, of course, work 

very closely with Senator Murkowski on this so we can start looking at ways to accelerate this kind of NEPA streamlining and ways 

in which we can protect the environmental laws and get the harvest up. I heard it again and again throughout these small timber 

towns in Eastern Oregon. They keep saying there’s got to be a way 

for the agency to be able to implement projects and plan for new 

projects in future years. 

So we’re going to follow that up with you. I can tell you it will 

be a bipartisan concern in the committee. 

Let me connect the dots on the hazardous fuels issue and see if 

we can walk through the implications. You’ve got the prospect of 

steep cuts to hazardous fuels and timber harvest. That’s what Senators have been saying. I gather that was a significant topic when 

I was out. 

You’ve got an inadequate number of planes to fight fires in the 

coming summer. You’ve got proposed cuts to personnel to fight 

fires. Now that looks, bad pun, like a pretty combustible mix. 

What is the agency going to do to try to achieve those trio of objectives, given the fact that in the 3 areas the numbers are not 

moving in a direction that is favorable to us? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The first with our preparedness resources we’re 

going to mitigate that impact by using call when needed resources 

that we can charge to suppression which just increases the cost of 

suppression which will increase the need to transfer funds. But at 

least we’ll be able to continue to respond. 

With the hazardous fuels, that money is focused on the wild land 

urban interface. We’re going to focus that 685,000 acres of work 

where we feel we can have the biggest return to help protect, you 

know, communities. At the same time with our integrated resource 

restoration proposal that’s the funds that we will use to be able to 

do the hazardous fuels work in conjunction with the restoration 

work, you know, outside of the wild land urban interface. 

So that’s our/their approach. There’s no question that there’s 

more work that needs to be done. But I’ll tell you it’s, as everyone 

knows, we’re in tough economic times right now. We had to make 

some tough choices. 

But that’s why when you look at our budget you need to look at 

all pieces of the request to see how it fits together, to be able to 

respond for us, to be able to move past where we are today and be 

able to move forward in FY 2014. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s just, by way of wrapping up, walk through 

where we are. I think you could hear the concern on the committee 

with Senators again and again coming back to the need to get the 

harvest up and our view that it can be done without ravaging the 

environmental laws. You have said, and it’s something I surely 

agree with, that the collaborative approach, the kind of thing I saw 

again last week in John Day and Grant County, is the preferred 

way to go. We appreciate that approach. 

34 

On the stewardship issue I think you’ll see significant support for 

that. The counties are so desperate now. There are some questions 

about how it ought to unfold. But there is strong support for that 

as well. 

As you heard me say we’re going to have the staff go back with 

you to try to find ways with the cost pools account, the minerals 

program, the land ownership program, to see if it’s possible to 

squeeze and squeeze and squeeze some more in all of those areas 

in order to get more dollars for the timber harvest. 

You heard me walk through, I think, the urgency of looking at 

ways to accelerate and streamline NEPA to try to respond to community concerns and figure out how with the hazardous fuels numbers that I just walked through with you that we can get through 

this fiscal 2014 fire season, which I am very concerned about given 

sort of the conflation of those 3 trends that strike me as very ominous. 

This committee has always worked on these issues in a bipartisan way. We are going to continue to do it. We understand that 

for the short term we’re going to have to have a renewal of Secure 

Rural Schools for at least a year as we try to put together a fresh 

approach in this area. But we must have that fresh approach. 

Senator Murkowski, you know, said when people are hanging by 

their fingernails and they’re out of, you know, fingernails. That’s 

what we’re seeing all over the rural West. These are communities 

that really see themselves if there isn’t some bold action, you know, 

taken to bring more balance to our natural resource policies which 

I think the collaboratives let us do, the lights are going out. They’re 

going to become sacrifice zones. They’re, in effect, going to become 

ghost towns. 

What Senator Murkowski and I have said on our watch is we’re 

not going to let that happen. This is too important to the people 

we represent to let that happen. So I understand that all these 

budget matters are not solely within your domain. You, as usual, 

are pretty diplomatic because I know that if you were writing 

budgets you’d write them a little differently. 

But the urgency of this is what we’re concerned about. So we’ll 

follow up in the areas that we talked about. 

Senator Murkowski, anything you would like to add at this 

point? Last word for you? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Oh, probably not, Mr. Chairman, because 

you give me too much time to reflect. I want to join you though in 

your commitment to working on a way forward with the Secure 

Rural Schools and those communities that we do represent. 

I guess what I’m mulling right now and we should always know 

better than to speak what’s on our mind, but I guess I’m looking 

at your testimony, Chief, and listening to what you’ve said in the 

discussions here. I’m just so concerned that within the agency, 

within the Forest Service we’ve, kind of, lost the, we lost the initial 

focus of the Forest Service. 

I think when most people think about the Forest Service they 

think of management of the forests. When they think of management of the forest you think about how you harvest it. When we 

think of management of our fisheries it’s how we make sure that 

we’ve got sustainable fisheries for the years to come. 

35 

But I mentioned in my opening comments that this budget looks 

like it’s more appropriate for within the National Park Service 

where there is no harvesting of timber because so much of what 

you’re focusing on seems to be these other aspects of the forest and 

jobs for the communities around the forest, not necessarily in harvesting, but in tourism and recreation. As I mentioned that’s not 

a bad thing, but that is one aspect of it. 

There’s been some discussion within our staff about maybe the 

Forest Service has kind of outlived its purpose. Maybe we need to 

look at this and take it out of U.S., excuse me, out of the Department of Agriculture and put it within the Department of Interior. 

You have certain aspects of it in terms of management of our lands 

like how BLM manages our public lands. The fire fighting aspect 

of it when you look at it from a budget perspective clearly about 

half your budget goes toward fire fighting. I mean is that something that goes into Homeland Security. I’m not so keen with that 

idea. 

Again, I’m just, kind of, talking off the top here. But I just feel 

like we have moved so far away from what the original intent, the 

mission of the Forest Service is. It’s the communities, the former 

timber communities, that I represent say this to me all the time. 

They say we’re not really quite sure what the Forest Service does 

here anymore. 

There’s lots of Forest Service employees. We see a lot of them 

around and they are our friends and our neighbors and the coaches 

of our kid’s teams. But we’re not cutting any trees anymore. We’re 

not seeing those timber related jobs. 

So what is the purpose of the Forest Service? I always take them 

back to its multiple use. But if I can’t confirm to them that that 

multiple use also contains a focus on harvesting of our timber 

they’re having a tough time believing that multiple use is really 

what it once used to be. 

I don’t want us to get to the point where this term multiple use 

is thrown around like we talk about an all of the above energy policy or all of the above except the things that I don’t want to include. Multiple use except the things that I don’t want to encourage. 

So I’d just like us to think about this, Mr. Chairman, as we move 

forward. Again, you represent some communities that have kind of 

gone through some of this transition over the years. But it’s something for us to think about it. I know, Chief, you probably give a 

lot of thought to that as well. 

So thank you for allowing me to ruminate a bit. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

I think, Chief, you heard the 2 magical words in this debate that 

go right to the heart of what this committee wants to do. It is consistent with this collaborative approach. That you have really, you 

know, championed. 

I mean what our communities, the small rural communities in 

the West get up in the morning and say, we’ve worked together. 

This is what the Resource Advisory Committees are all about; we 

come together with this kind of clear mission that it’s all about 

multiple use. What’s happened over the years is it seems that instead of forestry and biologists and people, timber industry, enviVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
36 

ronmental folks all come together to practice multiple use it feels 

like we’re running a lawyers full employment program where we 

just cannot consummate this kind of vision. 

So when Senator Murkowski says the 2 magical words, multiple 

use, that’s what the West wants. We think it’s consistent with the 

kind of collaborative approach that you’re talking about. Now what 

we’ve got to do is we’ve got to get into some of the specifics which 

is why I stressed accelerating and streamlining NEPA as one clear 

route to this kind of multiple use approach. 

I suspect you’d like to have a chance to say something at this 

point. We’re glad to let you have the last word. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski, 

thank you. 

It is multiple use. That is what we strive to do, you know, based 

on what the public wants. We’ve spent a lot of time talking with 

our publics to find that balance within multiple use so that we can 

do it all. 

We’re right up there with the number of recreational visitors 

that come to the national forest as the Park Service has. That’s always been a big part of the national forest. But it’s also the management of these lands whether it’s the mineral resources, whether 

it’s the timber production, whether it’s the energy production. 

I mean that’s part of the national forest and grasslands. We do 

it all. That’s the difference. 

When I look at where we are today from where we’ve been and 

I’ve been at this now for 35 years. I see for once in my career that 

there is an understanding of a need for us to restore these forests. 

Yes, I’ve identified over 12 million acres that we need to do timber 

harvest on to be able to get that work done. 

We also need to maintain the timber industry and whether that’s 

in Southeast Alaska for the jobs that are needed up there or if it’s 

in the Chairman’s State. There is a recognition of that to be able 

to find the balance to be able to do the amount of work that we 

need to restore the forest and be able to maintain industry so 

there’s somebody to be able to do the work because otherwise 

there’s no way the public is going to be able to pay for it. The costs 

would just be too high. 

So for once we finally, to my view, have reached a place where 

we can really make a difference. If we can just move forward with 

the work that we’re doing and to be able to get the budget like 

we’re requesting in 2014 to be able to support that. 

When I look back on what’s happened, the other day I was looking at since 1998 our national forest system, the employees that 

are our foresters, our engineers, our folks that work in recreation, 

our staffing has gone down by 35 percent in all of those. Then 

when it comes to timber management it’s gone down 49 percent. 

But at the same time we’re producing about the same as what we 

were doing in 1998. The timber production is down a little bit, but 

if we get back on accelerated restoration we’ll be right there. 

Those are the efficiencies that we’ve gained. But those have been 

big shifts, you know, to the agency. This has gone to the fire. 

There’s just no question. I mean, that’s been something that has 

had an impact on this agency because at the same time our staffing 

in fire has gone up 110 percent. We need to be able to do that to 

37 

respond to the fire seasons that we’re having today that are so different than when I was a fire fighter and through the majority of 

my/our career. 

Those are the sort of things that we need your help and support 

on to be able to define some ways to move forward. But I’ll tell you 

I really do believe that we have the best chance to be able to just 

reframe this debate around natural resource management and our 

national forests once and for all with the level of interest, the level 

of understanding that exists in our communities today. When I go 

out there and I can see environmental groups that will stand up 

with us in a court of law supporting a timber sale. Five years ago 

there’s no way I would ever have thought that would happen. 

But today that’s the change. The idea that when it comes to species management like the spotted owl that for so many years it was 

like no, timber harvest impacted owl habitat. Today the Fish and 

Wildlife service acknowledges that in our dry forest type we need 

to get out there and restore those forests because fire is the No. 

1 impact to spotted owl habitat. 

Those are the change conditions that we have today if we can 

just take advantage of it. 

So you’ve been very gracious with your time. I appreciate the opportunity. I cannot wait to continue to work with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, thanks very much. I remember when you 

told me that the Fish and Wildlife service, in your view, was advocating a higher harvest in order to protect the owl. I was just trying to imagine how in rural Oregon people would fathom something 

like that. 

So there will be plenty to talk about in the days ahead. 

Senator Murkowski, we’re going to work on these issues together. 

Chief, we’ll be following up in the areas that we talked about. 

Thank you as always for your response. This is the first hearing 

on the budget and you made it possible because you were so willing 

to come together quickly and we appreciate it. 

With that the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following statement was received for the record.] 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION, 

Washington, DC, April 16, 2013. 

Hon. THOMAS J. VILSACK, 

Department of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY VILSACK, 

We have been concerned for some time that federal forest lands throughout the 

West are experiencing serious environmental stresses that affect the health and vitality of these ecosystems. They are overgrown; they exhibit all the symptoms of an 

unhealthy ecosystem; and they demand urgent attention. Now is the time for the 

U.S. Forest Service to accelerate its efforts to promote sound forest management 

policies that maintain ecological balance. 

As you know, millions of acres in states throughout the West have fallen victim 

to bark beetles and other insect and disease plights. These epidemics, an overgrowth 

of vegetation, and the persistent drought have increased the number and complexity 

of wildfires, leading to exponentially higher suppression costs. The workload and 

costs to restore these forests and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires is staggering and necessitates an immediate commitment of financial and other resources. 

Western Governors have passed numerous policies acknowledging the extent and severity of our forest health crisis. We have met with you and your staff on many ocVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
38 

casions and shared our concerns, yet we remain dissatisfied with the pace of response. 

It is our understanding that in 2010 only about 30 percent of the total U.S. Forest 

Service budget was allocated to manage our national forests. In the mid-1980s, that 

number was closer to 70 percent. Most of the agency’s budget is spent on fire suppression, administrative support, research, and other programs. The current approach to resource allocation results in fewer funds available to manage the more 

than 193 million acres of national forests for forest health and fuels reduction. To 

that end, we request a specific accounting of the areas in which these funds have 

been spent. We further request that the U.S. Forest Service work to put the private 

sector to work on vegetative management activities on National Forest lands 

throughout the West. 

We support the goals of the U.S. Forest Service’s Restoration Strategy, which will 

increase restoration acres while utilizing the wood produced by these efforts. Achieving the goals of this strategy will require developing and implementing new, more 

efficient ways of doing business and forest products industries are an integral part 

of this effort. We request that the U.S. Forest Service provide state-by-state specifics 

on how many additional acres it plans to treat through the Restoration Strategy 

over the next five years, including how much biomass, board feet, and other forest 

health and restoration projects are envisioned. We would also like to work with you 

to convene a forest industry task group to identify ways that the timber industry 

can assist with forest management. Private sector forest professionals are a cost- effective tool that the U.S. Forest Service can utilize to handle this immense workload. They stand ready and willing to do so. 

By improving forest management through the use of the private sector, we also 

help support our declining forest industry and suffering rural economies. Our forest 

industries are already faced with low margins and limited markets; if we lose these 

industries, any restoration efforts will suffer a significant blow. As Governors, we 

support the type of proactive forest management that leads to healthy rural communities, improved forest conditions and increased utilization of wood products as outlined in the U.S. Forest Service Restoration Strategy. In addition, we are committed 

to successful implementation of the Western Regional Action Plan—National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. We support efforts to fully utilize existing 

mechanisms and provide additional authorities to the U.S. Forest Service, including 

Stewardship End-Result Contracting, grants, agreements, local labor force, opportunities to increase biomass utilization, and Good Neighbor policies. 

With continued uncertainty due to sequestration and the potential for further federal budget cuts, we recognize the financial challenges involved in such an endeavor, 

but believe that engaging the forest products industry as a partner can help alleviate some of these challenges. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

GARY R. HERBERT, 

Governor, State of Utah, Chairman, WGA. 

JOHN HICKENLOOPER, 

Governor, State of Colorado, Vice Chairman, WGA. 

(39) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. At the hearing, you indicated that the Forest Service has reduced the 

unit cost of generating a million board feet of timber by 23%. Can you please provide further information about that and how have those cost reductions been 

brought about? 

Answer. When adjusted for inflation, funding for timber production has been re- duced by over $185 million since 1998 and there has been a reduction of 3,171 fulltime equivalents working in forest management. During this same time, the agency’s unit costs for producing timber decreased by 23 percent from $203/MBF (thousand board feet) to $157/MBF, adjusting for inflation. 

The Forest Service is becoming more efficient through improvements in our National Environmental Policy Act analyses and timber sale preparation program, an 

all-lands restoration approach, and collaboration with partners, agencies, and 

Tribes. The Forest Service continues to build on these efficiency gains and seeks further improvement through the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot program, stewardship contracting, and collaborative landscape scale restoration. 

Question 2. We all know the present airtanker fleet is in bad shape-to say it lightly. I appreciate you’re requesting additional funding to modernize these important 

resources, but your proposal to modernize the fleet still remains vague. What models and quantity of planes would comprise, regardless of budget, an ideal fleet? 

Now given, that the Agency operates within budget constraints, can you tell us 

what models and quantities of planes you are considering? Have you narrowed down 

some of your options since the release of the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy? 

Answer. In an ideal fleet, the Forest Service would focus on an aircraft designed 

and built for the airtanker mission in the wildland firefighting environment. This 

would be a large airtanker that is designed for the maneuver load impacts of the 

airtanker mission or similar missions, that is turbine (turbo-prop or turbo-fan) powered, and that can cruise at a speed at or greater than 300 knots (345 miles per 

hour). The aircraft should have a minimum retardant capacity of at least 2,000 gallons; 3,000 gallons or more is preferred. 

The agency continues to evaluate models of aircraft suitable for large airtankers 

as part of the Next Generation airtanker contracting process-based on capability, effectiveness of the retardant delivery system, and cost. Models of aircraft that are 

being and have been evaluated under the Next Generation contracts include the 

BAE-146, the MD-87, the C-130J and the DC-10. 

RESPONSE OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR LANDRIEU

Question 1. A few years ago, you made an announcement that USDA would promote wood products in building construction and would prefer wood in your own 

buildings. How many buildings have been built that have used wood since this announcement? How many buildings do you have in the pipeline and are there plans 

to use wood? Will these buildings use the LEED rating system-which discourages 

the use of wood products? 

Answer. The Forest Service uses wood products frequently in construction and we 

estimate that wood makes up approximately two thirds of all building materials 

used for new facilities and large scale renovation projects. In December 2011, the 

Forest Products Laboratory published ‘‘Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction.’’ This report summarizes the scientific findings that support the environmental 

and economic benefits of using wood and wood products in green building construction. The publication recognizes that wood is a renewable resource, helps mitigate 

40 

climate change, promotes healthy forests, and is a green construction material. 

Since 2011, when the USDA policy on utilizing wood was formally directed, the following new buildings have been built: 

• Angeles National Forest Supervisor Office, CA 

• Camino Real Ranger Station, Carson National Forest, NM 

• Corvallis Forest Science Laboratory and Siuslaw National Forest HQ Office, OR 

• Arcata Lab, CA 

• Juneau Lab, AK 

• Wood Products Insect Laboratory, MS 

• White Mt. Forest Supervisor’s Office, NH 

• Francis Marion Ranger District Office, SC 

• Deschutes Forest Supervisor’s Office, OR 

• Appalachian Ranger District Office, NC 

• Walker Ranger District Office, MN 

We have an estimated five buildings planned. All of these buildings will use wood. 

The facilities currently in design that will be going for Green Globes certification 

are: 

• Research Triangle Park Forestry Science & Assessment Center, NC 

• Enoree Ranger District Office, SC 

• Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab Renovation and Addition, MT 

• McCall Administrative Site Consolidation (Payette Forest Supervisor’s Office & 

Ranger District Office), ID 

• Clinch Ranger District Office, VA 

While the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification does give points for the use of wood, we prefer 

to use the Green Globes certification. New Forest Service building construction 

projects for regional offices, supervisor’s offices, district offices, visitor centers, and 

research offices or laboratories where the building is 10,000 gross square feet or 

greater in size must be registered and certified using either the LEED rating system 

(minimum Silver certification), Green Globes (minimum Two Green Globes certification), or other third-party certification system. All other buildings, whether new 

or major renovations, must be designed to incorporate sustainable principles into 

the systems and components appropriate to the building type and project scope. This 

requirement applies to buildings on an individual basis, and the most recently 

issued version of the third-party certification system must be used. We encourage 

construction projects to be designed and constructed with domestically harvested 

wood products, ideally locally sourced, and from National Forest System lands, 

whenever practicable and feasible. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 1. Some of my constituents have raised concerns about the implementation of the Small Business Administration’s 30-70 rule on set-aside sales that requires not more than 30 percent of the timber volume be resold to large interests. 

It is my understanding that when the Forest Service offers a timber sale, it appraises the sale for its potential market value and sets the minimum bid that it will 

accept based on that appraisal. And one factor in the appraisal is the cost that the 

purchaser (small or large) will absorb to bring the timber to a manufacturing facility. Higher haul-cost results in lower profits for the purchaser. Appraisals are made 

to the nearest mill, which in most instances is a large mill because the number of 

small business mills has declined. Why does the Forest Service not appraise these 

set-aside sales to the nearest small business mill that would more accurately reflect 

the actual cost? Small businesses will not bid on set-aside sales if the cost for hauling the timber to a small business mill is not feasible. 

Answer. The Forest Service Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program, developed in cooperation with the Small Business Administration, is designed to ensure that qualifying small businesses have the opportunity to purchase a ‘‘fair 

share’’ of National Forest System (NFS) sawtimber offered for sale. 

The Forest Service recognizes that changing the appraisal point for set-aside sales 

may better reflect the transportation costs for some small business sawmills and 

independent loggers, allowing them to bid on more sales. 

With the number of mill closures over the last few years, we need to evaluate our 

current policy to see if we need to adjust our appraisal process to factor in the loss 

of small business mills. If we determine a need for change, we will conduct a public 

review and comment process before any changes are made. 

41 

Question 2. Timber sales must be set aside for small business when its participation falls below a certain threshold. The Forest Service calculates this participation 

level based on small business participation in full and open sales over the previous 

five year period. The Forest Service, however, does not count the timber volume on 

Stewardship contracts, which impact the future market share calculation for conventional timber sales. It is my understanding that stewardship timber sales have 

grown in every region each year; and some market areas only have Stewardship 

sales, resulting in a continuous small business timber purchase deficit. Why does 

the Forest Service not count the timber volume purchases by small business on 

Stewardship Timber contracts when it calculates the small business set-aside? 

Answer. The Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Forest Service agreed 

not to include volume from stewardship contracts or Integrated Resource Timber 

Contracts (IRTC) in the Set-Aside Program when stewardship contracting was initially authorized. SBA and the Forest Service also agreed to track the volume of 

sawtimber sold through IRTCs. The use of IRTCs has increased to the extent that, 

in some market areas, only stewardship sales are being offered; thus, no sales are 

available to be set-aside for preferential bidding by small businesses when the SetAside Program is initiated (‘‘triggered’’) on a market area. SBA has requested inclusion of the Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts in the Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program. 

We plan on beginning the public review and comment process to consider adding 

IRTC to our SBA Set-Aside Program as soon as stewardship contracting is reauthorized. 

Question 3. Trails on national forest lands serve the recreational needs of about 

50 million hikers, cross country skiers, horseback riders, off-road vehicles, bicycles 

and other recreationists every year. These trails improve health and fitness, provide 

access to natural areas and beauty, and increase community pride. They are also 

an economic driver. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, trail-based 

recreation supports 768,000 jobs, and contributes $80.6 billion to the nation’s economy annually. 

Unfortunately, the condition of these trails is, in some cases, not very good. Currently, only one-third of all National Forest trails are maintained at a minimum 

standard condition. This has resulted in a range of impacts, including unsafe trails, 

ecological degradation and loss of access. 

One of the main reasons for trails being in poor condition is that funding for trails 

maintenance has not kept up with demand. In 1980, the Forest Service budget contained $793 in maintenance funding per mile of trail. However, in 2013 we will 

spend only about $491 per mile of trail with sequestration—a 38% decrease in trail 

funding despite continued growth in trail length and visitor hours. The result is a 

trail maintenance backlog that has grown steadily during the last decade and now 

stands at $314 million. 

What is your strategy for addressing the trail maintenance backlog, and will this 

budget provide you with the resources to reduce the backlog in 2014? 

Answer. The FY 2014 President’s Budget proposes $82,531,000 for Trails. Constrained budget authority, including the sequestration, will necessitate prioritization 

of available resources between all of the critical programs that the Forest Service 

delivers including the Trails program. We continue to strengthen partnerships in 

trail stewardship, particularly those that help deliver youth programs. We will also 

continue to focus on management and protection of the National Scenic and Historic 

Trails. 

We propose funding in FY 2014 to maintain and repair approximately 48,784 trail 

miles, including repair and reconstruction of bridges and trails damaged by natural 

disasters. Approximately 20 percent of this work will be accomplished through the 

use of volunteers. In FY 2014, the agency will address approximately 20 percent of 

the total trail system miles through a unified program of work; however, it will not 

reduce the backlog of trail maintenance. 

In FY 2012, we maintained 59,274 miles of system trails, out of a total of over 

158,000 miles. When trails receive adequate maintenance, we can provide a higher 

quality experience for visitors to the national forest. 

Question 4. The Legacy Roads and Trails Program has been in existence for five 

years, and there is a new report by two environmental groups that says the program 

has been a huge success and is moving the Forest Service’s restoration agenda forward. The President’s FY 2014 budget request proposes to subsume the Legacy 

Roads and Trails Program into the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program. 

Question 4a. Can you discuss the Legacy Roads and Trails role in the overall restoration agenda of the Forest Service and the agency’s plans for ensuring this road 

and trail work continues to remain a top priority moving forward? 

42 

Question 4b. Despite the program’s five-year record of successful accomplishments, 

it seems the President’s budget is essentially a proposal to cut or eliminate Legacy 

Roads and Trails by subsuming it into the IRR. What benefits would there be if this 

program was kept independent, as a complementary program to the IRR, similar to 

the current process for the CFLRP? 

Answer 4a. The Legacy Road & Trail program has played an important role in 

the agency’s overall restoration efforts by concentrating funds on the repair and 

maintenance of National Forest System (NFS) Roads and Trails that are contributing to watershed degradation, and on the decommissioning of roads and trails 

that are not needed for the management or enjoyment of NFS lands. 

As we move this program into the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program, these funds will continue to be focused on important resource restoration 

work, while allowing local line officers to direct funding to the most urgent restoration needs. 

Answer 4b. Activities previously accomplished under the Legacy Roads and Trails 

activity would continue under the IRR, including urgently needed road and trail decommissioning, long-term road storage, repair, and maintenance and associated activities. Road and trail repairs required due to storm disturbances in local communities that are urgently needed to protect community water resources are also an 

important consideration for funding within IRR. 

We will continue to examine the benefits of the Legacy Roads and Trail budget 

line item by monitoring the performance of road and trail related restoration work 

completed with all funding sources. The agency will compare past accomplishments 

with Legacy Road and Trail funds to current and future accomplishments with IRR 

funds. 

Question 5. I am also interested in how IRR would be implemented in the Tongass 

National Forest in southeast Alaska. Over the past five years, the Forest Service 

has invested $7.9 million annually in tourism and recreation, a billion dollar industry that employs 10,200 people. The Forest Service has invested $8.6 million annually in fishing, another billion dollar industry that employs 7,200 southeast Alaskans. And the Forest Service invested $23.4 million annually in timber and roads, 

a money-losing industry that only employs 107 people. That translates to spending 

$775 per year per tourism job, $1,194 per year per fishing job, and $218,692 per 

year per timber job. 

Question 5a. How would this funding allocation change if IRR is implemented nationally? 

Question 5b. Because IRR is designed to prioritize restoration and fire resiliency 

(and fire is not an issue in the Tongass), how do you anticipate the effects of IRR 

in the Tongass? Do you anticipate that funding will leave the Tongass for other forests? 

Question 5c. Do you anticipate that the Forest Service would use its discretion to 

increase funding for fish, wildlife and tourism, which support the region’s economy? 

Answer. Funding for forest products, legacy roads and trails, wildlife and fisheries 

habitat management, vegetation and watershed management, and hazardous fuels 

in non-Wildland Urban Interfaces (non-WUI) contribute to restoration on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. With national Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) 

authority, allocations would reflect priority needs for landscape and watershed restoration that meet the social, ecological, and economic aspects of managing the NFS. 

Under IRR, instead of funds being specifically allocated through individual budget 

line items, these activities would be funded through the single budget line item for 

IRR. Line officers would now have the flexibility to fund work that is concentrated 

where a combination of restoration issues can be addressed, and with the blend of 

activities necessary to sustain, maintain, and restore ecological integrity. Through 

the pilot authority, the agency is working to allocate IRR funds to meet restoration 

needs, and no longer allocating funds in the traditional budget line items. With a 

nation-wide IRR appropriation, the agency would however, continue to fund and 

support core and historical operations and management functions to prevent the decline in the health and condition of the national forest and grassland ecosystems. 

IRR is a budget consolidation tool designed to help promote restoration activities 

on NFS lands. Management of the non-WUI is included along with several other activities in IRR. The regions will be allocated funds based on restoration work that 

can be accomplished. The regions will determine what mix of activities must be implemented to achieve high priority work, as not all restoration activities are applicable in every location. Management of non-WUI areas is just one way to achieve restoration goals. On the Tongass National Forest, the current budget emphasizes the 

forest programs for which continued viability and growth will be critical in the transition effort including visitor services, timber, restoration, and fisheries. In order to 

further build on recent restoration success, such as the Harris River restoration 

43 

project, the Region and the Tongass National Forest are also aggressively pursuing 

outside partnership support to increase the level of restoration work. Due to the 

critical importance of salmon populations to the economic health of southeast Alaska, the Tongass National Forest has worked with a number of partners to develop 

a detailed Tongass five-year Watershed/Fish Restoration Plan, for pursuing restoration of several important salmon bearing streams. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SCHATZ

Question 1. Hawaii’s forests are home to more than 10,000 native species including over 60 endangered avian species that rely upon these tropical forested areas. 

Still, Hawai‘i is one of eight states without a National Forest. 

Can you please speak to the value of tropical forest conservation for all Americans? Further, could you please discuss the importance of programs such as the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund in helping to protect more tropical forest lands? 

Answer. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of tropical forest conservation and continues to work in Hawaii through its Research and Development and 

State and Private Forestry Programs. In 2012 the Forest Legacy Program, which 

is funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), provided a $2 million 

grant for the purchase of a conservation easement to protect over 3,000 acres on the 

Hamakua Coast on the Big Island. 

Question 2. Since 2007, the Forest Service has maintained the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest (HETF), one of the few U.S. research sites dedicated to enhancing our understanding of conservation biology and tropical forest management. 

The research at HETF is essential to advancing our understanding of the impact 

of environmental change on our tropical forests, combating the effects of invasive 

species, and preserving and protecting Hawai‘i’s delicate environment. 

How does the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget prioritize and support the U.S. 

Forest Service’s tropical forestry research, including activities at the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest? 

Answer. The President’s Budget supports tropical forestry research in Hawaii and 

the Asia-Pacific region at the same level as FY 2013, including efforts to (1) determine the potential impacts of and possible mitigations for climate change on terrestrial, riparian, aquatic, and near-shore marine ecosystems of high and low-lying islands, (2) develop improved practices and decision support tools to better manage 

at-risk species and landscapes, (3) increase the capacity of local agencies and governments to effectively deal with resource management challenges, and (4) enhance 

understanding of cultural knowledge and practices and their integration into research and management. 

Our Facilities Program priorities for FY 2014 are to support the safety and health 

of all users of our existing infrastructure and to judiciously defer all new construction, including phased projects that include new construction to subsequent years. 

The development of the Pu’u Wa’awa’a research area infrastructure is a phased 

project including site development, utilities and buildings. The site survey was completed in FY 2013 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is 

in progress. This site remains a priority but further construction is deferred in FY 

2014. 

Question 3. Hawaii’s pioneering research on tropical forestry also provides the 

United States with the knowledge and expertise about tropical forest management 

that it can share with its partners around the world to help them improve their conservation and management practices. This research is particularly important as the 

United States seeks greater engagement with countries in the Asia Pacific, including Indonesia and the Philippines, and could be used to broaden and deepen our 

foreign relations with countries in the region around tropical forest conservation and 

restoration. 

How does the U.S. Forest Service leverage its tropical forestry research, including 

the research developed at the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, to help America’s 

partners be better stewards of their tropical forests? What authorities might improve the U.S. Forest Service’s ability to share its research and cooperate with other 

countries? 

Answer. The Forest Service seeks to enable its Pacific Basin partners by handson mentoring and capacity building. Staff from the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry: 

• Work with and provide mentoring to island foresters in the design, execution, 

analysis, and interpretation of research studies aimed at answering real-world 

resource management questions asked by local managers. Forest Service scientists assist foresters with integrating research findings into management 

plans. 

44 

• Conduct introductory and field sampling workshops to engage host countries in 

the Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program. It is designed to 

provide policy makers in the Asia/Pacific region with credible scientific information needed to make sound decisions related to the role of tropical wetlands in 

climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. It is a collaborative effort 

of the Forest Service, the Center for International Forestry Research (Indonesia), and Oregon State University with support from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. 

• Engage in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) research funded by DOD in 

Hawaii to understand issues of fire management and invasive species. Since 

Hawaii is home to so many life zones and ecosystems representative of other 

tropical locations, Forest Service researchers use findings to interact with a 

broad range of tropical land managers and researchers from the Asia-Pacific region and new world tropics. 

• Use Hawaii’s model ecosystems to understand how warming and drying affect 

ecosystem processes. This research is leveraging participation in international 

climate change discussions about managing not just tropical forests but forests 

in general in response to changing climate. 

The Pacific Southwest Region’s State & Private Forestry and the Washington Office’s International Programs established a program for Professional Internships in 

Pacific Terrestrial Island Ecosystem Management. The focus is twofold: (1) provide 

low-cost, on-island continuing education courses in resource management and related subjects and (2) provide intensive professional internships. 

The Forest Service needs no additional authorities to share its research and cooperate with other countries. 

Question 4. Hawaii’s tropical forests are important natural and cultural resources, 

and Native Hawaiians have employed conservation practices that can be very informative in the context of modern forestry management and science. Can you speak 

towards the importance of outreach to native communities and outline some particularly helpful programs or initiatives in this regard? 

Answer. Outreach to native communities is essential to understand and, where 

possible, integrate into modern management the cultural practices that supported 

sustainable use of natural resources before European colonization, and to develop 

the next generation of native natural resource managers. The Forest Service is an 

active partner or participant in multiple educational and outreach ventures in Hawaii, including the following: 

• The Hawaii Youth Conservation Corps is supported in part by Forest Service 

dollars ($51,000 in 2012), with non-Federal matching funds provided by Kupu, 

the local non-profit organization that administers the Hawaii YCC program. 

• Scientists with the Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry provide AmeriCorps interns with mentoring and hands-on experiences in forestry research and education. 

• Forest Service scientists and professionals mentor 10 to 15 undergraduate students each summer in partnership with the University of Hawaii at Hilo’s Pacific Internship Programs for Exploring Science. 

• Over 700 Hawaii K-12 children have participated in the Forest Service’s More 

Kids in the Woods-Starts with a Seed program, which is aimed at increasing 

their outdoor experiences and environmental literacy. 

• Over 200 K-12 kids at the Laupahoehoe Community Public Charter School participated in the GreenSchools! Program through a grant from the USDA Forest 

Service, including energy audits of the school and learning about high efficiency 

alternatives for the school. 

• The Forest Service co-sponsors Project Learning Tree workshops for educators 

with a focus on native forest ecology and restoration. 

• Forest Service staff, in partnership with Na Pua Noeau, a University of Hawaii 

Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Program, lead two-week summer courses 

focused on topics such as climate change, human impact on the environment, 

natural resource management, ahupua‘a land management systems, and the 

importance of preservation, conservation, and restoration. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. Chief Tidwell, please clarify how you intend to meet the goals of treating more acres as stated in the Forest Service’s report, Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on National Forests, especially in the wildland urban 

interface, with a 37% reduction in funding in the hazardous fuels program? 

45 

Answer. Restoration work is accomplished with a number of funding sources, including Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) as well as Hazardous Fuels. The 

President’s Budget continues to propose full implementation of IRR as a way of improving efficient delivery of many National Forest System programs throughout the 

Nation. The reduction in fuels funding will result in fewer acres of hazardous fuels 

treated, but still allows us to treat 685,000 of the highest priority acres. This reduction is just one of many difficult tradeoffs that had to be made, while fulfilling our 

commitment to request funding for the 10-year average for suppression funding. 

Question 2. Chief Tidwell, thank you for such a strong commitment to the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program in the 2014 

budget. As you know, LWCF and Forest Legacy are critical tools that allow for the 

strategic acquisition of parcels within National Forest boundaries. By connecting 

landscapes, these parcels will provide management efficiency, protect water quality, 

and make it easier to fight and contain wildfires. How can we ensure that the three 

Colorado projects on the FY 14 budget list-the Uncompahgre National Forest, the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the Sawtooth Mountain Ranch Forest 

Legacy Project-will be funded and completed this year so we can better manage our 

forests? 

Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) acquisition projects proposed in the FY 2014 President’s Budget are the highest priorities for the Forest 

Service for FY 2014. The Forest Service is prepared to proceed with the field work 

necessary to complete a Federal acquisition of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail project and the Ophir Valley project on the Uncompahgre National Forest. 

The Forest Service and the State of Colorado stand ready to complete these acquisitions as soon as an appropriation is made available. 

The Forest Legacy project list published in the FY 2014 President’s Budget is in 

priority order, with the Sawtooth Mountain Ranch project ranked 19 out of 28 

projects. Ultimately, the number of Forest Legacy projects that receive funding will 

be dependent upon the amount of money that is appropriated for the fiscal year in 

question. The Forest Legacy grants provided to the States are for an initial period 

of two years. Therefore, if the Sawtooth Mountain Ranch project receives funding 

in FY 2014, we do not expect that it would close in the same fiscal year. However, 

we will provide whatever assistance possible to help Colorado close as quickly as 

is possible if this project receives funding. 

Question 3. Chief Tidwell, I am concerned, as I’m sure you are, about the chronic 

underfunding of LWCF, whose Outer Continental Shelf revenues are deposited into 

the U.S. Treasury each year but are unfortunately spent in unrelated ways. How 

will you work with me and my colleagues to ensure that these dollars go where they 

belong to conserve the places we need protected? 

Answer. The FY 2014 President’s Budget proposes $177 million in Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funding for the Forest Service, with $84.8 million 

for the Forest Legacy program and $92.3 million for the Land Acquisition program. 

Of the $177 million total, $118 million would be discretionary funding and $59 million is a new proposal for mandatory funding to be transferred from the Department 

of the Interior (DOI). 

Mandatory funding will allow the Agency to engage in a multi-year planning process that will strengthen local and community partnerships in conservation and optimize valuable investments by leveraging other Federal and non-Federal funds. Mandatory funding will provide the financial certainty that will keep the interest of 

partners and landowners which would otherwise be lost to multi-year delays and 

more attractive offers from developers. 

The increased funding of LWCF is a key component of the President’s America’s 

Great Outdoor (AGO) Initiative. AGO also emphasizes increased coordination across 

Federal agencies and with State and local governments to ensure the most important areas are conserved. To promote increased coordination, the FY 2014 President’s Budget proposes that $57 million of the Forest Service’s $177 million LWCF 

funding support Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) projects. Through CLP, 

the Forest Service is working with DOI and its bureaus to identify landscapes where 

the agencies can collaboratively respond to locally supported planning efforts to protect critical ecosystems before fragmentation occurs. 

Conserving large-scale landscapes provides multiple resource and economic benefits to the public, including cleaner drinking water, recreational opportunities, reduced wildfire risk, protected habitat for at-risk and game species, and jobs generated on and off forests and grasslands. Acquiring these lands will reduce expenditures associated with boundary management and fire suppression for the Forest 

Service and surrounding communities and will increase public access to and enjoyment of public lands. 

46 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Please explain how sequestration and the budget rescission will impact your equipment purchases, contracting of aircraft and helicopters, and the 

number of firefighters you will have available this fire season. Is the agency adequately prepared to handle another fire season, like the one it faced in 2012, why 

or why not? 

Answer. The sequestration of funds will directly impact our ability to maintain 

existing firefighting capability. Specifically, firefighting resources could be reduced 

by 500 firefighters, and 50 to 70 engines. We will ensure adequate aerial firefighting 

and other resources during 2013 by using additional call-when-needed (CWN) aircraft, engines, and crews, which can be charged to suppression. CWN resources average 150 to 200 percent of the cost of exclusive use resources, thus potentially increasing our suppression costs for FY 2013. In addition, suppression is funded below 

the 10-year average, increasing the chances that we will need to transfer funds from 

other accounts to pay for firefighting. 

Question 2. Modernizing the firefighting fleet is important to ensuring the agency 

has the capacity to fight wildland fire. This committee has been very concerned 

about whether the Forest Service has a viable, cost-effective strategy for replacing 

the legacy fire air-tankers. I do want to recognize that you have included a request 

for $50 million for air-tanker modernization and I commend you for including that. 

If it does get funded, how will those funds be expended? 

Answer. The additional funding will be used to cover a portion of the increased 

costs of the next generation large airtanker contract costs as well as some of the 

costs of converting the seven C-27Js from a military mission to the airtanker mission. 

Question 3. In your budget justification, the Forest Service includes a table outlining the potential maximum number of firefighting aircraft resources that may be 

contracted. Included in this table are C27Js which you have characterized as a medium airtanker that would have a different operational mission than the large 

airtankers. If you are able to obtain the C27Js from the Department of Defense, 

what mission would these aircraft fulfill? How many of those aircraft would be utilized to drop retardant and how many would be utilized to deliver firefighters 

(smokejumpers) to fires? How much would it cost the Forest Service to bring these 

C27Js online to fight fires? How would the Forest Service operate and maintain 

these aircraft? What are the expected operation and maintenance costs of C27Js? 

Answer. The seven C-27Js would be operated as medium airtankers (as a component of the overall airtanker fleet) and carry the same retardant load as our legacy 

P2s. The C-27J aircraft provides a modern (2 years old or newer) aircraft capable 

of multiple wildland fire missions including aerial application of fire retardant, 

smokejumper deployment, cargo delivery for fire crews, and transport of incident 

management teams. We are still working to develop cost estimates for these aircraft. 

Question 4. In 2009, Congress enacted the FLAME Act to establish a reserve fund 

in the treasury to provide a mechanism to address the escalating costs of emergency 

fire suppression. The idea was to allow the agencies to fight major fires without taking the drastic step of transferring funds from other essential non-fire programs. 

The FLAME fund was supposed to be funded in addition to the suppression account 

which has been funded using the 10-year rolling average. In this budget, however, 

you propose to take the suppression account and FLAME together to fund the 10- 

year rolling average of suppression costs. Why is the Forest Service including the 

FLAME Fund to fund the 10-year average of fire suppression costs? 

In your testimony at the hearing you stated that: ‘‘the FLAME Act has not had 

the success we had hoped for.’’ What did you mean by this statement? Please explain. 

Answer. Using the 10-year average for funding fire suppression is based on longstanding practice and an agreement between the Administration and Congress, and 

is in line with other types of calculations done to predict funding needs for similar 

types of programs. However, the Administration recognizes the increasing instance 

of severe fires and the budget impacts that have resulted from the cost of suppressing those fires. Other methodologies for calculating fire suppression funding 

are being explored. We will continue to work with the Office of Management and 

Budget and Congress to identify appropriate ways to budget for the increasing costs 

of wildfire suppression and preparedness. 

The FLAME funds were designed to pay for the cost of large and complex fires 

and as a reserve when suppression funds in Wildland Fire Management are exhausted. The FLAME Act indicates that the request for a FLAME fund should be 

based on an estimate of the amount needed for fires that meet the size and severity 

47 

criteria in the Act. The FY 2012 request for FLAME was based on previously designated FLAME fires and subsequent requests were based on this level. 

Question 5. I understand that turning the Stewardship Contracting authority into 

a permanent authority is a top priority of the agency. The data for FY 2012 suggests 

that fully 25 percent of all of the saw timber volume offered by the Forest Service 

was through stewardship contracting. Back in 2006 your agency published draft regulations to ensure that sawtimber volume offered through stewardship contracting 

would count towards the Small Business Set-Aside program and that you would 

eliminate the Structural Change Re-computations in the existing Small Business 

Timber Sale Set-aside Program. 

Now that more than a quarter of the saw timber offered by the Forest Service 

is transacted through stewardship contracts and you are seeking to make this a permanent authority; when are you going to publish the final Stewardship/Small Business Set-aside regulation? Will you commit to me that these regulations will published in the Federal Register within the next 60 days in a manner that reflects 

the proposal released in 2006? 

Answer. The Forest Service published a Proposed Directive and request for public 

comment on August 1, 2006, regarding proposed changes to its Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program (Set-Aside Program) direction. The proposed changes included removing the structural change recomputation requirements, and subjecting 

Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC’s) to the Set-Aside Program procedures except for the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 30/70 rule 

requirements. Per SBA’s regulations, no more than 30 percent of the included 

sawtimber volume on a set-aside sale may be delivered to other than small business. 

Comments to the proposed changes were generally split along industry size class. 

Since that time, new issues have arisen, such as appraisal point (i.e. appraising all 

set-aside sales to the nearest small business mill versus appraising them, per current policy, to the nearest mill regardless of size class). While the agency cannot 

commit to a specific time frame, these new issues are being considered. 

Question 6. The Committee has been informed that challenges still remain and 

future actions at the federal level may be necessary to better coordinate the approval process for the continued operation of existing hydropower projects and support for growth of new hydropower. Specifically, I have been informed by hydropower owners and operators that federal agencies, including the Forest Service, continue to assert and exercise mandatory conditioning authority over lands outside of 

their jurisdiction and without a connection to the project. Furthermore, there are 

cases where two or more federal agencies, contained within different departments, 

regulate the same activity under the relicensing process for a single hydropower 

project. Often, this results in conflicting requirements on the owner/operator that 

increase both delays and project costs. 

What steps can the Forest Service take to promote greater efficiency, predictability and balance in the process for relicensing hydropower projects—both within 

the agency and in coordination with other agencies? 

Answer. The Forest Service continues to coordinate with other Federal and State 

agencies to provide predictable information to support the delivery of an efficient 

and predictable process for relicensing hydropower projects and to support negotiations towards multi-party settlement agreements. 

Nationally, we are taking steps with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

share energy program staff and to increase efficiency and communication between 

agencies. In FY 2014, we are proposing to add a second energy position in the headquarters staff to increase efficiency at processing. With BLM, we train our agency 

energy coordinators together. We are attending energy conferences to enhance our 

understanding and relationships with project applicants, and we work with them 

closely when processing their applications. We also work with applicants to determine what is necessary for efficient construction and maintenance of proposed energy projects, including the use of helicopters, or road construction. 

The Forest Service Alaska Region (R10) is processing over 30 hydro-electric 

projects, of which 26 are Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposals. We have 

maintained our R10 energy staff to facilitate processing of these proposals. We have 

participated in the State’s effort to develop an Integrated Resource Plan for energy 

development in southeast Alaska, and have sponsored the Energy Cluster in the 

Southeast Alaska Economic Development as part of our Transition Framework. 

Question 7. At the hearing, you were asked by Senator Wyden about administrative management models and what type of management model would be more likely 

to increase the timber harvest levels on the national forest system-collaboration 

with continued direct Federal administration or turning over administrative management responsibility to the private sector (i.e. trust land model). You answered 

the collaborative approach. The trust land management model is our Nation’s most 

48 

ancient and durable resource policy. There are numerous examples across the West 

of the successes of this management model in producing sustainable timber harvests 

and revenue. Please provide the data that demonstrates that collaboration on the 

national forest system as a management model is more successful in increasing sustainable timber harvest levels than trust land management. 

Answer. The statutes and regulations that govern trust lands are different from 

those for Federal timber sales. Most States are mandated to generate revenue for 

schools from their State trust lands. This usually results in States selecting the 

larger and more valuable trees to harvest resulting in higher volumes per acre and 

lower unit costs. 

Federal timber sales are integrated with other resource objectives under the multiple use mandate. Developing integrated restoration projects, which benefit a range 

of uses, is best achieved through collaboration, which reduces the potential for appeals and litigation. The White Mountain Stewardship 10-year contract (nearing 

completion) and the ‘‘4FRI’’ projects in northern Arizona are examples of the success 

of collaboration accelerating the acres and volume being treated on National Forest 

System lands. 

The Forest Service continues to explore ways in which it can be more efficient and 

effective and accomplish more restoration activities. As a result, the Forest Service 

has decreased costs for preparing and implementing timber sales by 23 percent over 

the last 15 years, reducing the unit costs for producing timber from $203/MBF 

(thousand board feet) to $157/MBF, adjusting for inflation. The agency has achieved 

some of these efficiency gains through collaboration in our National Environmental 

Policy Act analyses and planning as well as improvements in the timber sale preparation program and using an all-lands restoration approach. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. The Forest Service budget proposes additional fees of $1 per A-U-M 

for family farmers and ranchers to recover the costs associated with NEPA analysis 

and issuing grazing permits. However, when I talk to both ranchers and agency employees back in Wyoming they attribute the increase of costs to renew a permit to 

excessive litigation against the agency. 

What percent of the Forest Service System line item budget is spent on litigation? 

Answer. The direct costs of litigation are the fee payments that the Forest Service 

makes under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Forest Service paid EAJA 

fees in the amount of $565,000 in FY 2012, $1,472,000 in FY 2011, and $113,000 

in FY 2010. In FY 2012 the EAJA fees paid were less than 0.036 percent of National 

Forest System (NFS) total discretionary appropriations (EAJA can be paid by any 

Forest Service budget line item) and did not have an appreciable effect on program 

funding for the agency as a whole. Individual units of the NFS, however, may experience significant funding impacts from specific court-ordered EAJA awards. Similarly in FY 2011, EAJA fees paid were less than 0.01 percent of NFS appropriations 

and did not have an appreciable effect on nation-wide program funding. Refer to the 

EAJA Special Exhibit, pp.14-34 to 14-37 in the FY 2014 Budget Justification for a 

detailed listing of these cases. 

Indirect costs associated with litigation, such as staff time spent responding to 

litigation and the cost of project delays due to litigation, are not tracked within the 

Forest Service. Our accounting system does not allow for an easy or efficient way 

of keeping indirect litigation cost information separate from other expenses associated with a project’s development, such as the project’s initial design, analysis under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and project implementation. Costs, 

including staff time and resources associated with litigation, are charged to the appropriation that funds a project (e.g., vegetation management, wildlife habitat improvement, recreation management), as are other costs associated with its implementation. 

Question 2. The Forest Service announced that as a result of the 5% sequester 

cut, timber production would be cut by 15%. 

If Congress increased funding specifically for timber production by 10% can the 

Forest Service increase total board feet by 30%? 

Answer. Approximately 51 percent of the funding for Forest Products is directed 

at preparing, offering and selling new timber sales, which is the basis for the output 

of timber volume sold. The remaining funding pays for administering the harvest 

of timber sales already under contract and handling walk-in business from citizens 

for firewood permits and special forest products. The agency is contractually obligated to administer existing contracts and we will continue to provide personal use 

permits for people to have access to firewood and other special forest products. 

49 

Thus, a 5 percent reduction in the total Forest Products program is actually a 10 

percent reduction in the funds available to prepare and sell new timber volume. 

Increases in Forest Products funding are directed to preparing and offering new 

timber sales with an expected increase in timber volume sold in the first year of 

the increase. As timber volume sold increases the need for additional funds in contract administration increases in subsequent years. The existing contracts for timber sold are a requirement for the Forest Service to fund, including the recently sold 

sales in FY 2012’s accomplishment. The Agency would also continue its public fuel 

wood and personal forest products program. After meeting these two obligations, 

any additional funding would be applied to preparing new timber sales. The Forest 

Service would not be able to achieve a 30 percent increase in its timber sales offerings with a 10 percent funding increase. 

Question 3. We spoke about the way the Forest Service counts acres burned by 

wildfires as acres treated when these number are reported to Congress. 

Will you provide me with how many acres the Forest Service treated in 2012 not 

including those acres burned by wildfires? 

During 2012, what was the cost per acre treated when the wildfires acres are removed? 

Answer. The total number of acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels, other than 

those by wildfire, on lands administered by the Forest Service in 2012 was 

1,897,802. 

The treatment cost per acre varies widely, due to the type of treatment, the part 

of the country, the accessibility of the site, and numerous other factors. In general, 

mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels ranges from $50/acre to more than $4,000 

per acre. Prescribed fire treatment of hazardous fuels ranges from $30/acre to 

$1,900/acre. 

Question 4. Does the Forest Service count personal use firewood in its board feet 

sold total? 

If yes, will you also provide me with the total board feet sold by the Forest Service 

in 2012 including only sawtimber, pulpwood, and useable biomass? Will you provide 

me the prices received for these same materials? 

Answer. Yes, fuelwood (firewood) volume is included in the overall timber volume 

sold. The table below displays the Sold Volume and Sold Value (in thousands of dollars) for FY 2012. 

Question 5. During the hearing you mentioned in response to Senator Johnson’s 

question about land acquisitions that the agency needed to buy land to improve border management efficiencies. 

Please provide me data and examples of how managing a border with private or 

state land is more expensive than the cost of the private or state land. 

Answer. Forest Service land and resource management activities, occurring at or 

near National Forest System land (NFS) boundaries, require that Forest Service 

boundary lines be surveyed and marked. This requirement is in part to protect 

neighboring landowners from encroachment by NFS activities, and in part to ensure 

that Federal lands are protected and maintained. 

Land acquisitions that result in a reduction of NFS boundary mileage result in 

a reduction the costs of Forest Service survey, boundary line marking and maintenance, and activities at or near NFS boundaries, including timber sales and fuels 

treatments. In designated areas-for example, in wilderness areas-the cost of a 


thomas2.eps
50 

boundary line survey could exceed the property cost of an inholding, especially in 

remote terrains where use of non-motorized tools might be required. 

Savings are not limited to acquisitions of inholdings. Any land acquisition that results in a reduction of NFS boundary miles, could result in a decrease of Forest 

Service costs. Some examples of proposed land acquisition projects that are expected 

to reduce Forest Service costs include: 

Montana Legacy Completion Project—Consolidation of a checkerboard pattern of 

lands, and thereby a large reduction of boundary miles, could reduce Forest Service 

survey costs by $336,000 per maintenance cycle (approximately every 10 years). 

Florida Longleaf Initiative—A reduction of approximately five miles of boundary 

line could reduce Forest Service survey costs by $80,000, at approximately $16,000 

per mile. 

Question 6. You stated the importance of the timber industry to achieving the 

management needed on the National Forests as the same work left to the agency 

would be cost prohibitive. I agree with your assessment. Yet the budget proposes 

reducing timber and fuels funding. Help me understand this contradiction? 

Answer. As a result of the national effort to reduce Federal budget levels, the 

agency’s funding request for restoration, timber harvest, and hazardous fuels treatments has been reduced from the FY 2013 President’s Budget level to $756,788,000 

for Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) and $201,228,000 for hazardous fuels 

treatments. Funding for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program was 

kept level. As a result, the restoration funding level proposed for FY 2014 is estimated to yield 2.38 billion board feet of timber volume sold, and the hazardous fuels 

funding level proposed is estimated to yield 685,000 acres treated in the Wildland 

Urban Interface. The Forest Service recognizes that maintaining a strong forest industry through selling timber is integral to helping accomplish forest restoration 

work and continues to identify and implement efficiencies in all aspects of forest restoration and hazardous fuels work. 

Question 7. The Executive Summary of the 2012 ‘‘Large Air Tanker Modernization 

Strategy,’’ page 2, second paragraph, states, ‘‘In response to this wildfire activity, 

the Forest Service’s airtanker fleet has flown an average of 4,500 flight hours, dropping almost 20 million gallons of retardant annually in the last ten years.’’ 

Were the average gallons dropped last year approximately the same as the average for the past 10 years? 

Was the average number of fire commander requests for large air tankers for this 

past fire season greater than the 10-year average? 

For the past two fire seasons, what was the average number of requests for large 

air tankers that the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) had to deny 

for lack of tanker resources? 

When awarded this year, will the next generation air tanker solicitation provide 

the forecast number of needed large air tankers within the next five years to meet 

the 10-year average gallons of retardant delivered without the need for additional 

solicitations in the next five years? 

Answer. There were 26.7 million gallons of retardant dropped by the airtanker 

fleet in 2012, which is above the 10 year average. 

In 2012, the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) responded to 851 

requests for large airtankers. We have not collected this type of information at the 

national level prior to 2012, so we are not able to compare the number of requests 

for large airtankers in the past fire season to a 10-year average. 

An average of 25 to 30 percent of the airtanker requests were not filled by the 

NICC in the past two fire seasons. Airtanker requests are prioritized based on values at risk. Informed decisions were made by fire managers to prioritize airtankers 

on initial attack and incidents with threat to life, property, critical infrastructure, 

and natural resource values versus fires with low values at risk. 

The next generation large airtanker contract, as well as potential agency-owned 

airtankers (C-27Js), will provide the 18 to 28 next generation large airtankers the 

Forest Service believes will maintain airtanker response and capability identified in 

the ‘‘Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy.’’ 

Question 8. The Forest Service has a commendable goal of controlling all wildfires 

that utilize fixed-wing air tankers within a so-called ‘‘initial attack.’’ 

In a successful large air tanker ‘‘initial attack,’’ how many large air tanker missions are normally flown? 

What is the USFS goal, as a per cent of initial attack actions, for initial attack 

success? 

What was the average success rate in the past two fire seasons? 

How does that compare with the 10-year average for initial attack success? 

51 

When initial attack was not successful, on average, how many large air tanker 

missions are flown on those fires? 

Answer. The agency does not have data at the level of specificity needed to answer the first part of this question. The number of large airtankers used, and the 

number of large airtanker missions flown, varies greatly on initial attack, depending 

on resources available, the conditions on the fire, and the location of the fire-among 

numerous other factors. 

We strive for a 98 percent success rate with initial attack. In the past two fire 

seasons, our success rate for initial attack was 96.8 percent, which is 1.1 percent 

less than the 10-year average. 

The agency does not have data at the level of specificity needed to determine how 

many airtankers were flown on fires when the initial attack was not successful. The 

number of airtanker missions flown varies greatly on initial attack, depending on 

resources available, the conditions on the fire, and the location of the fire—among 

numerous other factors. 

Question 9. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has utilized the Very 

Large Air Tankers (VLAT) for delivery of large quantities of retardant in last couple 

fire seasons. The ‘‘Large Air Tanker Modernization Strategy’’ and your comments 

at the hearing indicate that the VLAT should continuously be in the mix of available airtanker assets. Does the Forest Service annual budget request for fixed wing 

air tankers include funding for VLAT assets? 

If not, how are the VLAT air tankers funded? 

Does the funding process enable VLATs to be available for the foreseeable future 

as part of the needed mix of air tankers? 

Answer. That is correct. The Forest Service believes the VLAT is part of the firefighting aircraft fleet, and it is considered a specialty airtanker. The President’s 

Budget request for Wildland Fire Management (WFM) covers the aviation needs for 

the agency. The VLAT assets are considered part of the available contractor provided aviation assets. The funding process does enable VLATs to be available for 

the foreseeable future as part of the needed mix of airtankers. 

Question 10. The Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) C-130 firefighting capabilities are stated to be ‘‘surge’’ assets. Under the Economy Act, when 

these DOD assets are utilized by the Forest Service, the Service must provide complete cost reimbursement to DOD. 

When C-130 units are activated, are they funded from annual appropriations, or 

are they funded from supplemental budget requests under the Flame Act. 

Prior to activating C-130 MAFFS units, does the Forest Service first determine 

if other air tanker assets that have equivalent or greater capability are reasonably 

available, including those on ‘‘Call When Needed’’ arrangements? 

Answer. The C-130 units are funded out of the Wildland Fire Management, Suppression account annual appropriations. FLAME Act funds may be used in years in 

which the Suppression account is fully depleted. 

Yes, MAFFS resources are used when contractor and cooperator resources are 

fully committed, not reasonably available, or activity is expected to peak and/or be 

sustained at a high level for a period of time. 

Question 11. The Forest Service gains access to needed fixed-wing aerial firefighting aircraft through ‘‘Call When Needed’’ (CWN) contracts. Are these CWN aircraft funded as part of the USFS annual budget, or do they also get funded through 

supplemental funding under the Flame Act? 

Answer. Call-when-needed assets are funded through the Wildland Fire Management, Suppression account annual appropriations. FLAME Act funds may be used 

in years in which the Suppression account is fully depleted. 

FLAME funding is transferred to the Suppression account after a declaration is 

approved by the Secretary and used in the same manner as funds appropriated to 

Suppression. FLAME funding is not ‘‘supplemental.’’ It is used to cover the costs of 

large fire events that meet criteria for a Secretarial declaration. 

Question 12. Current plans call for the Forest Service to take possession of a certain number of C-27 aircraft that have been declared excess to DOD needs. 

How many C-27 aircraft does the Forest Service require to meet its long-term 

plans? 

If the Forest Service assumes the responsibility for C-27 aircraft, what will be the 

role of those aircraft within authorized Forest Service responsibilities? 

Will the Forest Service operate C-27 aircraft with its own employees? 

What is the Forest Service life-cycle cost estimate for operation and maintenance 

of the C-27? 

If the Forest Service utilizes C-27 aircraft for air tanker operations, will the current MAFFS I or MAFFS II units function in the C-27? 

52 

If the current MAFFS II units will function in the C-27, will the Forest Service 

assign first priority for use of those MAFFS II units to the C-27, or will the Department of Defense (DOD) C-130s have priority for utilization of MAFFS II units? 

Answer. The Forest Service is ready to take seven C-27Js as outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act. Long-term plans will depend on interest from the 

U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal agencies in the C-27J. The C-27Js will be used 

as medium airtankers. The Forest Service will not operate C-27J aircraft with its 

own employees; the agency intends to contract for operation and maintenance of the 

aircraft. The Forest Service is developing the life cycle cost estimates. 

The Mobile Aerial Firefighting System I (MAFFS I) never met retardant delivery 

requirements. MAFFS I units are no longer maintained and refurbishment would 

be cost prohibitive. MAFFS II, even if scaled in size for the C-27J, would severely 

restrict the C-27J’s payload. The Forest Service intends to contract for a new retardant delivery system for the C-27J that optimizes the aircraft’s payload. The MAFFS 

II units will not fit in the C-27J, so there will be no conflict with the DOD MAFFS 

C-130s. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HELLER

Question 1. The State of Nevada has been asked by the Forest Service to repay 

$239,000 in payments made under the Secure Rural Schools program. These funds 

were paid to the state and subsequently distributed to counties according to state 

law prior to the implementation of sequestration. Can you please provide the legal 

justification for the request to return these funds? 

Answer. All government funds apportioned in FY 2013 are subject to sequestration. There are only a few exceptions. While funding for Secure Rural Schools (SRS) 

payments is based on the level of FY 2012 receipts, section 102(e) of the SRS Act 

directs that the funds be paid after the end of the fiscal year and therefore it is 

budget authority for FY 2013 and subject to sequestration. The Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), as amended, requires that 

sequestration be taken at the budget account level, and applied equally to each program, project, and activity (PPA) in those accounts. In the case of SRS, the relevant 

account is the Forest Service Permanent Appropriations account, which includes two 

PPAs for SRS: one comprising the FY 2013 budget authority from receipts in FY 

2012 (the ‘‘receipts PPA’’), and the other comprising additional FY 2013 budget authority provided from Treasury to cover the shortfall in receipts necessary to make 

the full SRS payments (the ‘‘Treasury payments PPA’’). In calculating the sequestered amount, BBEDCA repeatedly refers to the amounts for a ‘‘fiscal year’’ or ‘‘that 

year’’ (2 U.S.C. 901a). Thus, consistent with the application of sequestration across 

all USDA programs, and across the government as a whole, the amount of the sequestration is based upon the full budgetary authority in the receipts PPA and the 

Treasury payments PPA for the entire fiscal year, not on the amount remaining 

available on March 1, 2013, the date of the sequestration order. 

Question 2. Nevada, the Forest Service is home to both the Bi-state and Greater 

sage grouse populations. An Endangered Species listing of the sage grouse would 

have a devastating impact on the economy and way of life in every county in Nevada. As I am sure you are aware, one of the biggest threats the biggest threat to 

sage grouse habitat on public lands is wildfire, particularly in overcrowded pinyonjuniper woodlands. What steps are the Forest Service taking to protect sage grouse 

habitat and to prevent an ESA listing for the bird? 

Answer. In considering the Forest Service role in sage grouse conservation it is 

important to note that the Forest Service only has 8 percent of existing sage grouse 

habitat. (The Bureau of Land Management has 51 percent of existing habitat, private landowners have 30 percent, and other ownerships make up the remaining 11 

percent.) National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Intermountain Region, which 

includes Nevada, Utah, northwestern Wyoming, and southern Idaho, have 70 percent of the Forest Service portion of high priority sage grouse habitat. 

The Forest Service is working cooperatively with our Federal, State, and interested non-governmental partners to address Bi-State and Greater sage grouse conservation needs. The Forest Service participated in the development of a Near-Term 

Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Action Plan as a member of the Range-wide 

Interagency Sage-grouse Conservation Team. 

Currently, the Forest Service is engaged in a planning process that includes National Environmental Policy Act disclosure and public input, to determine whether 

to amend 20 Land and Resource Management Plans to incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures, with a target decision date of September 2014. The goals of this 

planning process are to: ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place; 

to reduce risks to sage-grouse and its habitat; maintain ecosystems on which sageVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
53 

grouse depend; and to conserve habitat necessary to sustain sage-grouse populations 

to an extent that precludes the need for its listing under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

While the Forest Service is engaged in the planning process, we have developed 

interim conservation recommendations based upon the following principles: 

1) Protect remaining expanses of unfragmented habitat. 

2) Minimize further loss of fragmented habitat. 

3) Enhance and restore habitat conditions to meet sage-grouse life history 

needs. 

These recommendations supplement the recommendations for sage-grouse contained in the Chief’s letter to Regional Foresters in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for 

sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation (July, 1, 2010). Another goal of the interim 

recommendations is to enhance consistency in management of activities on National 

Forest System land with the BLM Instructional Memorandum (IM) No. 2012-043: 

Greater Sage-grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (Dec. 22, 2011). 

The Forest Service also completed interim conservation recommendations (Fall 

2012) accompanying a list of 2011 and 2012 NFS projects for Greater Sage-grouse 

and their habitats. 

The Forest Service would not characterize wildfire as the greatest threat to sage 

grouse habitat on public lands, particularly in overcrowded pı ̃n-on-juniper woodlands. Pı ̃n-on-juniper encroachment into adjacent sage brush habitat is a significant 

issue relative to the loss of sage brush habitats. This is primarily due to the lack 

of disturbance processes in those habitats. The wildfire threat is more relevant to 

the invasion of exotic annual grasses into sage brush stands (e.g. cheatgrass), and 

resulting frequent, uncharacteristic wildfires that convert sage brush to annual 

grassland communities. Most of this occurs on lower elevation BLM lands. The processes resulting in the loss of sage brush habitats due to pı ̃n-on-juniper encroachment and annual grassland invasion are distinct and different processes. 

Question 3. Does the Forest Service recognize the State of Nevada’s primacy when 

it comes to water allocation and water law in Nevada? 

Answer. The Forest Service respects the rights of States, including Nevada, to appropriate water, and the role of States in administering water rights. The agency 

actively participates in State water right adjudications and other proceedings. 

The Forest Service claims reserved water rights for consumptive or nonconsumptive needs on reserved lands directly related to securing favorable conditions of 

water flow or to furnish a continuous supply of timber under on the Organic Administration Act of 1897 authority including: 

• Domestic water needed for Ranger Stations, fire stations, work centers, housing, 

and other facilities constructed and maintained for administering National Forest System (NFS) programs for watershed protection and timber production. • Water needed for fire protection and control. 

• Water needed for constructing and maintaining access roads for timber production and watershed protection activities. 

• Water needed for irrigation of tree nurseries, seed orchards, and other facilities 

devoted primarily to the supply of timber or watershed protection. 

• Water needed for maintaining Forest Service riding and pack stock used in the 

administration of the NFS timber resources and for watershed protection. 

• Water needed in connection with special uses where the user is engaged in activities carried out for watershed protection or timber production on the NFS. 

• Water needed in the form of instream flows sufficient to maintain the stability 

of stream channels for favorable conditions of water flow and protection against 

the loss of productive timber lands adjacent to the stream channels. This includes the volume and timing of flows required for adequate sediment transport, 

maintenance of streambank stability, and proper management of riparian vegetation. 

The Forest Service claims prior appropriation water rights from the State for 

other Forest Service water uses and permitted programs under the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960: ‘‘It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, and wildlife, and fish purposes.’’ These uses would include water rights 

for campgrounds, ski area snowmaking, livestock water, and in-stream fish flows. 

Question 4. Can you please provide the reasoning behind incidents where the Forest Service has required water from permittees prior to issuing permits? 

Answer. The Forest Service mission is ‘‘to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and 

future generations.’’ Fulfilling this mission means sustaining water, as well as soil, 

54 

vegetation, fish, wildlife, and other resources, all while providing outdoor recreation 

and local economic opportunities such as permitted programs like grazing and ski 

areas. Forest Service policy is to claim possessory interest in water rights in the name 

of the United States for water uses on National Forest System (NFS) lands as follows: 

• Claim water rights for water used directly by the Forest Service and by the general public on the NFS. • Claim water rights for water used by permittees, contractors, and other authorized users of the NFS, to carry out activities related to multiple use objectives. 

Make these claims if both water use and water development are on the NFS 

and one or more of the following situations exists: (1) National Forest management alternatives or efficiency will be limited if another party holds the water 

right; and (2) Forest Service programs or activities will continue after the current permittee, contractors, or other authorized user discontinues operations. 

Question 5. Since this is a hearing on the FY14 budget, including the Recreation 

Program budget, I understand that in building external partner support for the program and the program budget, that the Ski Area Recreational Enhancement Act 

was passed in 2011 but is awaiting full implementation based on the need for the 

specific policies and regulations. Since these investments in activities by our external partners will help build capacity in your program in the upcoming fiscal year, 

(not to mention creating additional jobs in our rural communities), can you give me 

a status on where the implementing regs are in the process and when you expect 

to have them ready for approval? 

Answer. The Forest Service will be implementing the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (SAROEA) through four regulatory and directive revisions: 

• A Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7330 amendment for Aerial Adventure Courses 

to provide technical standards for design, construction, and operation of zip 

lines, rope courses, and similar facilities. We anticipate issuing this amendment 

by June 2013. • A direct final rule to change the definition of a ski area to conform to the 

SAROEA amendment. A Federal Register Notice has been drafted and is under 

review. • An amendment to FSM 2340 to implement nondiscretionary elements of the 

SAROEA. The amendment is being drafted and should be issued by June 2013. • A proposed amendment to FSM 2340 with additional guidance on implementation of SAROEA. A Federal Register Notice explaining the proposed amendment 

has been drafted and publication for public notice and comment is anticipated 

in summer 2013. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FLAKE

Question 1. On page 10 of the budget justification, the Forest Service notes, ‘‘More 

than 70,000 communities are now at risk from wildfire, and less than 15,000 have 

a community wildfire protection plan or an equivalent plan.’’ What’s more, experts 

predict worsening fire seasons, as evidenced by the more than 9 million acres 

burned in 2012. Yet, the Forest Service is proposing a reduction in the Hazardous 

Fuels line item and a $38.5 million increase in funding for land acquisition. Why 

is the Forest Service more focused on acquiring additional lands, as opposed to better management of the lands under its authority? 

Answer. Effective land management, including reducing hazardous fuels, is accomplished through a variety of means. Land acquisition can help reduce management costs by consolidating landownership, avoiding further fragmented development within forest boundaries which can exacerbate fire, insect, and disease management challenges. Land acquisition is one tool we have to promote the long-term 

health and sustainability of the national forests and grasslands and thereby protect 

taxpayer investments in National Forest System lands. Integrated Resource Restoration, an integrated approach to land management, will further sustain, maintain, and make landscapes more resilient and thus protect communities. We are 

working through the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy to increase the number of Community Wildfire Protection Plans and implement several 

other measures to restore and maintain resilient landscapes, create fire-adapted 

communities, and respond to wildfires. 

Question 2. Instead of increasing land acquisition funding, would it be a more prudent expenditure of funds to prioritize funding for wildfire protection thereby conserving additional lands that might otherwise be destroyed by wildfires? 

55 

Answer. Funding to support land acquisition that can help reduce management 

costs by consolidating landownership and avoiding further fragmented development 

within forest boundaries is prudent as it helps to reduce fire dangers and assists 

with management of insects and disease. Through the National Cohesive Wildland 

Fire Management Strategy, we are promoting measures to restore and maintain resilient landscapes, create fire-adapted communities, and respond to wildfires. Continued funding of land acquisition can assist in promoting these measures by avoiding further fragmented development within forest boundaries which can exacerbate 

wildfire. 

Question 3. As you know, the State of Arizona’s recent experience with historically 

significant wildfires has impacted forest ecosystems, including watersheds for much 

of the rest of the State, and upended the lives of many residing near national forest 

system lands. The Schultz Fire in June 2010 consumed 15,000 acres on the Peaks 

in the Coconino National Forest. The following fire season, 2011, was extraordinarily destructive, as the Wallow Fire, the Horseshoe Two, and the Monument 

Fire, among others, burned in the State. The Wallow Fire encompassed 538,000 

acres and surpassed the Rodeo-Chediski Fire as Arizona’s largest. The Horseshoe 

Two, Monument, and Murphy Fires damaged another 300,000 acres, and destroyed 

more than 60 homes, in southern Arizona. 

The August 2011 Wallow Fire Rapid Assessment Team (RAT) report attempted 

to quantify anticipated recovery effort expenditures. The costs across the various 

categories summed to more than $101 million. Approximately $34 million was expended in the initial Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation efforts. While the RAT 

product was an early review, the conclusions provide a meaningful reference in evaluating the status of the rehabilitation and mitigation measures. What were the contemplated expenses, and actual expenditures to date, for the following categories 

referenced in the RAT document: roads and infrastructure; watersheds; fires and 

fuels; range resources; forest vegetation; fisheries; and recreation trails and facilities? 

Answer. The Wallow Fire Rapid Assessment Team identified approximately $100 

million of needed rehabilitation projects in the burned area through FY 2018. To 

date, the Forest has received over $6.0 million for recovery efforts. The table below 

displays contemplated and actual expenditures through FY 2012 for Wallow Fire recovery efforts (dollars presented are in thousands). 

Question 4. I have been informed the Coronado National Forest, after the Horseshoe Two, Monument, and Murphy Fires, received $2.5 million in 2011, $1.4 million 

in 2012, and $123,000 in 2013, in recovery funding. Has an attempt been made to 

qualify and quantify the post-fire exigencies? If so, what is the difference between 

the anticipated and actual expenditures? 

Answer. We have quantified the post fire needs for those fires, which we anticipated to be $4.8 million. The difference between the anticipated need and expenditures to date is roughly $800,000. 

Question 5. What is the status of the Schultz Fire recovery effort? 

Answer. Coconino National Forest (CNF) signed an Environmental Assessment 

last summer on the Forest efforts, which includes up to 462 acres of treatments on 


thomas1.eps
56 

the Forest in 15 miles of channels to reduce sediment transport. Concurrent work 

on CNF and private property will begin this spring. 

All Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation treatments were completed in 2011, 

which included five rounds of rehabilitation efforts implemented by the Forest Service at a cost of about $4.1 million. Treatments included mulching, seeding, berm 

construction, and other emergency measures to protect life, property, and sensitive 

natural resources. Long-term rehabilitation projects continue, including over $1 million invested in road and trail reconstruction, recreation site repair, noxious weed 

treatments, hazard tree removal, reforestation, and similar recovery efforts. 

Question 6. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) on March 9, 2013, 

approved a resolution expressing strong objections to the implementation of the 

travel management rule (TMR). Likewise, the Western States Sheriff’s Association 

(WSSA) unanimously enacted a resolution on March 21 declaring opposition to the 

application of the TMR by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

The AGFD policy states, in part, ‘‘it is unacceptable for a federal multiple use 

land management agency to establish regulations that the public cannot understand; that the federal land manager cannot effectively enforce; or that the land 

manager imposed upon state and local enforcement authorities an unreasonable and 

unenforceable mandate that denies reasonable and sufficient access to citizens.’’ The 

WSSA requests ‘‘an immediate cessation of further implementation of the Travel 

Management Plan on all public lands until a comprehensive review of its impact to 

counties, and the residents and visitors therein, can be conducted..’’ The WSSA further resolved to encourage your agency to ‘‘enter into meaningful discussions with 

the leadership of the nation’s western counties in an effort to form agreements that 

will ensure Sheriffs retain adequate and appropriate access to public lands in order 

to provide service and the public is not restricted from historic and traditional uses 

of public lands.’’ 

Will the AGFD, the WSSA, other agencies and organizations, and individual citizens, be provided opportunities to further contribute to the planning and implementation of the TMR, including in those USFS units with published motor vehicle use 

maps? 

Answer. Yes, we will offer ongoing opportunities for contributions to the planning 

and implementation of the Travel Management Rule. In Arizona approximately 30 

percent of the Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs) are complete, allowing for initial 

input on the vast majority of MVUMs in the State. Furthermore, 36 CFR 212.54 

states, ‘‘Designations of National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas 

on National Forest System lands pursuant to § 212.51 may be revised as needed 

to meet changing conditions. Revisions of designations shall be made in accordance 

with the requirements for public involvement in § 212.52, the requirements for coordination with governmental entities in § 212.53, and the criteria in § 212.55, and 

shall be reflected on a motor vehicle use map pursuant to § 212.56.’’ 

The Forest Service will also continue to provide opportunities for Federal, State, 

county, and other local governmental entities, Tribal governments, and the public 

to contribute to the planning and implementation of the Travel Management Rule, 

as is required per the regulations noted below. 

The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) was developed using an open and 

public process to follow the direction in Executive Order 11644 (Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands) and the later Executive Order 11989 (Off-Road Vehicles 

on Public Lands). The Forest Service has completed travel management under Subpart B on over 80 percent of NFS lands, creating a MVUM as the legal document 

to inform the public and for law enforcement. Law enforcement vehicles and uses 

are exempted under 36 CFR 212.51. 

With regard to new MVUMs, 36 CFR 212.52 states in part, ‘‘The public shall be 

allowed to participate in the designation of NFS roads, NFS trails and area on National Forest System lands and revising those designations pursuant to this subject. 

Advanced notice shall be given to allow for public comment, consistent with agency 

procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act on proposed designations 

and revisions.’’ 

Additionally, 36 CFR 212.53 states, ‘‘The responsible official shall coordinate with 

appropriate Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities and Tribal 

governments when designating National Forest System roads, NFS trails, and areas 

on NFS lands pursuant to this subpart.’’ 

Question 7. Your testimony and the Forest Service budget justification heavily 

focus on restoration, namely ‘‘restoring ecosystems.’’ To that end, the budget justification highlights, among other things, the importance of forest health, the resiliency of forest landscapes, the need to restore fire-damaged forest, and to reduce the 

risk of wildfires. The Forest Service further elaborated stating, ‘‘By restoration, we 

57 

mean restoring the functions and processes characteristic of healthier, more resistant, more resilient ecosystems, even if they are not exactly the same systems as before.’’ What are the characteristics of a healthier, more resistant, more resilient ecosystem that the Forest Service is trying to achieve? 

Answer. The Forest Service is trying to achieve healthy and resilient ecosystems 

that will have greater capacity to absorb natural disturbances and large scale 

threats to sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future environmental conditions, such as those driven by climate change and increasing human 

uses. 

Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Creating a forest ecosystem which is healthier, 

more resistant, and more resilient involves mimicking the process found in a natural ecosystem which is capable of overcoming stressors or disturbance events. By 

using restoration strategies, forest stands can be developed to be more diverse, in 

age and species, and better able to withstand stressors. For example, a forest consisting of a single tree species, a monoculture, and little age difference is susceptible 

to a complete loss should an insect or pathogen succeed in exploiting that forest 

structure. Added to this risk would be other stressors which might equally affect 

all of the trees. Increasing the diversity of age and species of forests has the additional benefits of: increasing habitat diversity, increasing resistance to invasive species, and improved ability for regeneration of the forest. In addition to forests, the 

National Forest System contains millions of acres of grasslands which require restoration to ensure ecosystem resiliency. 

In forested areas where fire is a natural process this involves using fire to maintain the forest type and structure. In many ecosystems, removing smaller trees to 

reduce the likelihood of crown fires, thinning mature vegetation to reduce the 

spread of fire from tree to tree, and removal of material on the forest floor through 

prescribed fire or mechanical means is necessary to ensure that the important components of the ecosystem survive a wildfire by reducing the intensity of the wildfire. 

In ecosystems that have long fire return intervals that may function ecologically 

post wildfire through self-regeneration, treatment may still be necessary to protect 

communities or other values at risk. These treatments are often similar to the treatments in forest types that had more frequent fire. 

Question 8. Has the National Forest System exhibited the characteristics of a 

healthy, more resistant, more resilient ecosystem in the past? If so, when did the 

Forest System exhibit those characteristics? 

Answer. Overall, our national forests were healthier, more resistant, and more resilient when they were originally established as Forest Reserves in the late 1800s. 

These lands (later to become National Forests) were set aside for timber production, 

watershed protection, and forest protection. A series of catastrophic forest fires that 

occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s led to efforts to suppress wildfires. 

Specifically, the Weeks Law of 1911 and the Clark-McNary Act of 1924 led to improved fire suppression by States and the Federal government. However, by removing fire from fire-dependent ecosystems, the trajectory of forest development was altered. 

Beginning in 1990, the effective suppression of fire ignitions combined with a 

large reduction in timber harvested led to an overall increase in forest biomass and 

fuel loads. Many of our National Forests are now more susceptible to fire, less resilient, and less resistant to threats. In addition to fire, forests face a suite of 

stressors, including: climate impacts, increased human population in and around 

forests, and increased threats from invasive species. 

The history of eastern National Forests differs from western National Forests. 

The Weeks Law of 1911 gave the Federal government authority to acquire land to 

protect watersheds and navigable streams. Many of the eastern National Forestsacquired mostly in the early 20th century-were areas in very poor condition. 

Through the restoration efforts of the Forest Service and others, these lands were 

reforested and saw a dramatic improvement in their ecosystem health. Like the 

western National Forests, the eastern National Forests face increased stresses/ 

threats from climate change, human populations, and invasive species. 

In many cases, our forests and watersheds are well-functioning and resilient. In 

a significant portion of our national forests, however, a history of fire suppression 

or other legacy conditions necessitate that the Forest Service take a more active 

management approach to restore conditions and functions, to protect communities 

and their drinking water, and to sustain other values including recreation and wildlife. This can be accomplished in part through increasing the scale and effectiveness 

of treatments, and over time, accelerating the pace of projects to treat more acres 

and employ more people in the work of restoring the national forests. 

58 

Question 9. On page 10 of the budget justification, the Forest Service notes that 

during the fire seasons in the 1930s ‘‘more than 30 million acres burned on average 

each year.’’ In the 1940s that number remained high at approximately 12 to 15 million acres-a level some experts predict we could see in the near future. Yet, the 

budget justification also notes that from the 1960s through the 1980s, when ‘‘the 

Forest Service furnished up to a quarter of the Nation’s supply of wood,’’ the average annual acres burned were well under 5 million per year, approaching a relatively paltry 2.983 million acres in the 1980s. How do these fire statistics factor 

into the Forest Service’s restoration efforts? What decade is the Forest Service trying to emulate with its restoration efforts? 

Answer. The relatively low annual acres burned of the 1960s and 1970s correlates 

with the cooler climate as well as landscape conditions (following a period of fire 

activity) that enabled the agency to be more successful in suppressing fires during 

that time frame. The majority of timber harvest in the 1960s to 1980s occurred in 

OR, WA, and southeast AK, where fire occurrence is historically low. The agency’s 

current focus is on vegetation treatment to protect communities and other values 

at risk and to improve landscape resiliency with wood as a byproduct. 

Forest Service restoration focuses on re-establishing the composition, structure, 

pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate sustainability, resilience, 

and health under current and future conditions rather than a point in the past. It 

would be difficult to achieve a condition from the past because human settlement 

patterns and a changing climate have already altered the landscape. The Forest 

Service is focused on the future and has prioritized the Wildland Urban Interface 

and the priority watersheds for treatment that collectively will aid in the management and suppression of the current and large fires. 

Question 10. In the budget justification overview, the Forest Service explains, 

‘‘Over the course of the FY 2012 fire season, our average suppression cost fell from 

the 5-year average of $448 per acre to $312 per acre, saving about $377 million.’’ 

Please explain how 5-year suppression costs fell, when 2012 saw one of the worst 

fire seasons with more than 9 million acres burned? 

Answer. The overall costs of suppressing wildfires have increased, but we did see 

a decrease in costs per acre of suppressing large wildfires. This is an indicator of 

how our risk-based approach in deciding how to manage individual fires is successful in not only minimizing the exposure to our firefighters but reducing costs. Without these changes, the 2012 fire season would have been even more expensive. 

Question 11. On page 2 of the budget justification, the Forest Service claims, ‘‘The 

Forest Service was founded in 1905 to help spread the spirit of conservation across 

the land.’’ The Forest Service website, however, explains: 

Unlike the national parks, which were created primarily to preserve natural beauty and unique outdoor recreation opportunities, the founders of early national forests envisioned them as working forests with multiple objectives. The Organic Administration Act of 1897, under which most national forests were established, 

states: ‘No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the 

forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of 

water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities 

of citizens of the United States . . . ’ 

Why did the Forest Service use its budget justification to describe its historic mission as one of spreading the ‘‘spirit of conservation,’’ when that description (according to the Forest Service website) more appropriately describes the historic mission 

of the National Parks Service? 

Answer. The phrase ‘‘spread the spirit of conservation,’’ was meant to communicate the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate. Traditionally, the term ‘‘conservation’’ has referred to sustainable use of resources and has been associated with the 

Forest Service, whereas the term ‘‘preservation’’ has encompassed the Park Service 

mission of preserving natural beauty and unique outdoor recreational activities. 

Question 12. Has the Forest Service’s core mission shifted to land management 

and conservation in way that more accurately aligns it with the mission of agencies 

under the Department of the Interior, as opposed to the Department of Agriculture? 

Answer. The Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and 

future generations and has not changed. As it has for over a century, the Forest 

Service can successfully fulfill its multi-faceted mission housed within the Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

As the Nation’s leading forestry organization, we also serve Americans in other 

ways that are in alignment with the USDA mission-which is to provide leadership 

on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related 

issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\81299.TXT WANDA
59 

ment. The USDA Strategic Plan FY 2010-2015 provides important information on 

how USDA and the Forest Service work together and play a pivotal role in protecting and restoring America’s forests, farms, ranches, and grasslands while making them more resilient to threats and enhancing natural resources. As public land 

stewards, USDA and the Forest Service work together to conserve and restore 193 

million acres of national forests and grasslands in the National Forest System. 

Question 13. The Forest Service’s lack of preparation for sequestration this year 

has caused considerable unrest in rural communities that face penalties and interest payments for failing to return payments to the Forest Service. How does the Forest Service intend to work with local communities to address this situation? 

Answer. The Forest Service is committed to assisting rural communities. To fulfill 

our commitment, payments to States were made in early January 2013 while the 

sequestration debate continued in Congress. In March of 2013, to comply with the 

law, we were required to ask each State to return the sequestered amount mandated by the Budget Control Act. We understand the hardship created by the impact 

of sequestration on payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act. States have the 

option to either pay back the sequestered amounts from their Title I and Title III 

money, or reduce the Title II allocations by the requisite amount, provided funds 

are available in Title II. We sincerely regret having to take this action but we have 

no other options under sequestration. 

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued its opinion on costs to be included 

in cancellation ceiling determinations for multiyear stewardship contracts on March 

1, 2011. Key points from the OGC opinion are below. 

1) Cancellation ceiling costs are for nonrecurring costs, such as start-up costs. 

2) Contractor costs of providing services under a multiyear stewardship contract should only be a factor in the cancellation ceiling determination if the 

costs are allocable to the contract. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) 31.201-4, ‘‘A cost is allocable if it is assignable to one or more cost objectives on the basis of relative benefit received or other equitable relationship.’’ 

For qualifying contractor investments, the costs may be included in the cancellation charge only to the extent that the multiyear stewardship contract benefits. 

3) When the Agency sells forest products and requires removal, but does not 

specify where the material is to be removed or what manufacturing is to be 

done, then the post-removal manufacturing costs are not applicable to the items 

or services to be furnished under the multiyear contract requirements. For this 

reason, those cost s would not be included in the cancellation ceiling calculation. 

4) The Agency is not liable under FAR 52.217-2, Cancellation under Multiyear 

Contracts, if it terminates a multiyear contract for reasons other than lack of 

funding. Instead, it is liable under the termination for the convenience clause. 

5) The costs to be included in any cancellation charge for an Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC) are limited to those contract required costs the 

contractor reasonably must incur to provide a service to the Forest Service. If 

a cost cannot be tied to a service contract requirement, it may not be included 

in any cancellation charge and, therefore, should not be a factor in the cancellation ceiling determination. 

6) Examples of costs to be included in a cancellation ceiling because the work 

is related to a service being performed include but are not limited to the following. 

i) Logging equipment to the extent the costs are allocable to the contract. 

ii) Slash treatment equipment, such as a mastication machine, to the extent the costs are allocable to the contract. 

7) Examples of costs not to be included in a cancellation ceiling because the 

work is not related to the service being performed include but are not limited 

to the following. 

i) Log trucks or chip vans if the contract does not require products to be 

removed from national forest land. 

ii) Facilities to manufacture the products removed since manufacturing is 

not a service provided under the contract. 

8) The determination of allocable costs will be specific to each contract. 

The above items should be taken into consideration for contract development and 

cancellation ceiling determinations. If you have any questions regarding cancellation 

under multiyear contracts, contact Ron Schilz, Procurement Analyst, Policy Branch, 

Acquisition Management. 

60 

Question 14. To avoid repeating this next year, how does the Forest Service intend 

to address sequestration in upcoming years? 

Answer. We will continue to work to implement the requirements of sequestration 

and mitigate impacts on rural communities and public interests as much as possible, while complying with the laws passed by Congress. 

Question 15. The Forest Service’s recent report, ‘‘Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests,’’ set a FY14 timber target of 3 billion board feet. Chief Tidwell similarly supported the 3 billion board feet goal. Nevertheless, the budget justification proposes a timber target of 2.38 billion board feet. 

If the report and the Forest Chief support a 3 billion board feet target, why does 

the budget justification include a reduced amount? 

Answer. As outlined in the Forest Service report ‘‘Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests,’’ the agency intended to take action 

over the next three years to increase the number of acres being mechanically treated by 20 percent. The agency was on track selling over 2.6 billion board feet of timber in FY 2012. 

Approximately 51 percent of the funding for Forest Products is directed at preparing, offering, and selling new timber sales, which is the basis for the output of 

timber volume sold. The remaining funding pays for administering the harvest of 

timber sales already under contract and handling walk-in business from citizens for 

firewood permits and special forest products. The agency is contractually obligated 

to administer existing contracts and we will continue to provide personal use permits for people to have access to firewood and other special forest products. Thus, 

a percent reduction in the total Forest Products program is actually a 10 percent 

reduction in the funds available to prepare and sell new timber volume. As a result 

of the national effort to reduce Federal budget levels, the agency’s funding request 

for restoration and timber harvest has been reduced from the FY 2013 President’s 

Budget level. As a result, the restoration funding level proposed for FY 2014 is estimated to yield 2.4 billion board feet of timber volume sold. 

Question 16. In the budget justification, the Forest Service proposed permanently 

extending stewardship contracting authority, which expires at the end of FY13. This 

program has proven successful in Arizona, and a number of constituents have expressed support in favor of reauthorizing this authority. There are, however, a couple of minor modifications that could improve the program. One of these is achieving 

parity between the fire liability provisions in timber contracts and Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSC) for stewardship. Please provide the statutory or 

regulatory citation for the timber contract provision. Why is there a distinction between the timber contract provision and the IRSC stewardship contract provision? 

Answer. The Integrated Resource Timber Contract (IRTC) is based on the provisions of the Forest Service timber sale contract, which was verified through the National Forest Management Act. The Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC) is 

tiered to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) as expressed through the Forest 

Service’s service contracts (FAR 452.236-77, Emergency Response). Thus, the IRTC 

follows the fire liability procedures in the agency’s timber sale contract, and the 

IRSC follows the fire liability clause included in the agency’s service contracts. 

Question 17. What efforts has the Forest Service undertaken to make the fire liability provision in the IRSC stewardship contract commensurate with the timber 

contract provision? If none, please explain why it has not undertaken those efforts 

Answer. As explained above, the fire liability provisions of the IRTC and IRSC 

are the same as the contracts from which they tier. Therefore, the IRTC follows the 

fire liability procedures in the agency’s timber sale contract and the IRSC follows 

the fire liability clause included in the agency’s service contracts. We are aware that 

the difference between the IRTC and IRSC is a concern for potential contractors and 

are further exploring this concern. 

Question 18. In light of the Forest Service’s increasing reliance on stewardship 

contracts instead of timber sale contracts, what efforts has the Forest Service undertaken to establish a local cost share from stewardship contract receipts? If none, 

please explain why it has not undertaken those efforts. 

Answer. Forest land managed through timber harvest will continue to play a critical role in restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of national forests and 

grasslands. Both the traditional timber sale contract and stewardship contracts will 

serve a vital role where appropriate. While counties do not receive payments from 

a stewardship contract, the receipts generated from the timber under a stewardship 

contract pay for restoration activities in the sale area, generating more work on the 

ground with an increased opportunity for local jobs. 

Question 19. In March 2011, the Office of General Counsel issued an opinion on 

the costs that should be included when the Forest Service makes a cancellation ceiling determination. Can you provide a copy of that opinion? 

61 

Answer. Agency legal opinions are privileged information. However, we have attached a copy of the October 13, 2011, letter sent to the Regional Foresters that outlines the key points of the OGC opinion and clarifies the costs that should be included in a cancellation ceiling determination. 

Question 20. What efforts has the Forest Service undertaken to reduce its upfront 

costs for cancellation ceilings? If none, please explain why it has not undertaken 

those efforts. 

Answer. The Forest Service issued a letter to the Regional Foresters on October 

13, 2011, that clarifies the costs that should be included in the cancellation ceiling 

determination for stewardship contracts. A copy of this letter is attached. 

Question 21. In his testimony, Chief Tidwell explained that the Forest Service is 

attempting to cut operating costs ‘‘by streamlining [the Forest Service’s] environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act.’’ Specifically, 

what is the Forest Service doing to streamline the NEPA review process? 

Answer. The Forest Service is continuously improving the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Current efforts include technology applications 

to speed public comment analysis, project file management, publishing environmental documents to the internet, and managing mailing lists. We have focused our 

NEPA training on key skills for managing the process, including team management 

and decision making. We have also established a learning network on adaptive management, focused environmental assessments, and iterative environmental impact 

statements (EIS) to examine the effectiveness of larger-scale NEPA analysis existing 

policies and practices. As an example, recently an EIS was prepared on the Black 

Hills National Forest to make a decision on treating bark beetles on over 250,000 

acres (three to six times larger than projects covered by typical EISs on the Black 

Hills National Forest). Lessons learned are being shared throughout the agency. 

The White House Council on Environmental Quality recognized Forest Service efforts to modernize the NEPA by selecting Forest Service proposals for two of their 

five NEPA Pilot projects that employ innovative approaches to completing environmental reviews more efficiently and effectively. Forest Service electronic management of NEPA and two landscape level projects, Four Forest Restoration Initiative, 

and 5-Mile Bell, were chosen as examples to share with NEPA practitioners in other 

Federal agencies. 

Question 22. Do those streamlining efforts extend to grazing permits, timber contracts, and stewardship contracts? 

Answer. Yes, the Forest Service is continuously improving the National Environmental Policy Act process for all of our programs. 

Question 23. How does the Forest Service plan on working with or otherwise collaborating with the Ecological Restoration Institute during FY14? 

Answer. The Forest Service will continue to work with the Ecological Restoration 

Institutes (ERI) to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem management to reduce 

the risk of wildfires and restore the health of fire adapted ecosystems of the interior 

West. The ERI will continue to (1) develop, research and promote restoration-based 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments to reduce the risk of severe wildfires and improve the health of dry forest and woodland ecosystems in the interior West, (2) synthesize and adapt scientific findings from conventional research to implement restoration-based hazardous fuel reduction treatments on a landscape scale using an 

adaptive ecosystem management framework, (3) transfer to affected entities any scientific and interdisciplinary knowledge about restoration-based hazardous fuel reduction treatments, (4) assist affected entities with the design of adaptive management approaches (including monitoring) for the implementation of restoration-based 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments, and (5) provide peer-reviewed annual reports. 

Question 24. Under the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 (‘‘NDAA’’), 

Congress authorized the transfer of excess U.S. Air Force (USAF) aircraft to the 

Forest Service for wildfire fighting activities (Section 1090, P.L. 112-239). The legislation gives Forest Service the opportunity to recapitalize a portion of the government-owned fleet without the added cost of purchasing new aircraft. In March 2013, 

USAF identified the C-27J Spartan as a platform ideal for divestment. What steps 

is Forest Service taking to utilize the transfer authority in NDAA, and is the Forest 

Service working with DoD in the development of the USAF C-27J Divestment Plan 

which could be released as early as June? 

Answer. The Department of Agriculture has sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense stating that the Forest Service would accept these aircraft and that they are 

acceptable for the firefighting mission. The Forest Service is in discussions with the 

Department of Defense regarding the divesture of the C-27Js. The Forest Service 

has a working group established to develop the needed contracts, establish program 

management, and work with the Department of Defense, the manufacturer, and 

other organizations necessary for C-27J transfer, conversion, and operation. 

62 

Question 25. How does the Forest Service’s budget proposal support the Four Forest Restoration Initiative through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

program? 

Answer. The President’s FY 2014 Budget requests $39,851,000 for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). The proposed FY 2014 

President’s Budget will continue to support implementation of the 20 CFLRP 

projects selected in FY 2010 and FY 2012, which includes the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

Question 26. What is the status of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative? 

Answer. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative is located on the ApacheSitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests. In May 2012, the Forest 

Service signed the largest stewardship contract in its history. Under the contract, 

Pioneer Forest Products will thin 300,000 acres in the next 10 years. The Forest 

Service will receive about $22 per acre, exchanging the value of the trees for the 

work. The first task order under that contract was issued in early April of 2013. 

In addition, the project published a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

on March 29, 2013. It proposes habitat enhancement, thinning, and prescribed burning on one million acres of the Kaibab and Coconino national forests in the next 

20 years. The DEIS is currently under a 60-day public comment period. 

Æ