(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Murkowski, Blunt, Daines, Udall, Leahy, and 

Tester. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF 

ACCOMPANIED BY TONY DIXON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING, 

BUDGET AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good morning. We will call the hearing to 

order this morning. We are here today to review the fiscal year 

2016 budget request for the Forest Service. 

Chief, it is good to have you back before the subcommittee. 

Thank you. 

And I would also like to welcome Mr. Tony Dixon, who serves as 

the Director of the Office of Strategic Planning, Budget, and Accountability at the Forest Service. He’s accompanying the Chief 

today. Welcome to you as well. 

Again, we are going to follow early bird rules here. We will do 

6-minute rounds afterward. Hopefully, we will be able to get 

through all of our questions this morning. I know that other members have other appropriations hearings that we are trying to juggle and run in and out between. So hopefully, we will operate 

smoothly here and efficiently. 

Let’s go to the budget request itself. The Forest Service has asked for $4.93 billion for fiscal year 2016. That is 2.7 percent or 

$130 million less than the current enacted level. The Forest Service 

has also requested an additional $854 million in mandatory spending for the proposed fire cap adjustment. 

I am pleased that the request maintains the increases the subcommittee included last year for hazardous fuels management. I 
2 

also appreciate the funding proposed for the Forest Inventory Analysis program. This provides important information to our States, to 

industry, and other land managers on the health of all of our Nation’s forests. It will allow this information to be collected in interior Alaska for the very first time, which the State has advocated 

for, for many years. 

I also appreciate that unlike previous years where the subsistence program line item was proposed for elimination, that funding 

is included at last year’s level. This is critical for managing the 

subsistence resource in Alaska, so I thank you for that. 

There are a few things that I do find concerning, so I have to mention those as well. The budget requests $127.7 million for Federal land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, $65 million of which is proposed to be mandatory spending. 

That is a staggering $80 million above fiscal year 2015. While the 

President’s budget doesn’t respect the budget caps, this subcommittee is still bound by the Budget Control Act. 

And while I do believe we should reauthorize and modernize the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, this is a proposal, looking at 

your budget, Chief, that I can’t support. 

The administration is yet again proposing the Integrated Resource Restoration program, which has been rejected multiple 

times by this subcommittee, because the Forest Service has not yet 

demonstrated the effectiveness of the current IRR pileup projects. 

And I know that I bring this up with you at every budget hearing, 

so it is back before us again. 

Despite the problems that I see with the President’s request, 

there are also areas where I do believe we can be working together. 

For example, I am committed to working with my colleagues to find 

a way to stop fire borrowing. Fire borrowing undermines the appropriations process and restricts our ability to complete important 

work on the ground because of the loss of field seasons. Future activities are further impeded when we are forced to repay fire suppression costs in the following fiscal year. 

I am hopeful that during the course of this Congress, we will 

reach agreement on how to end this destructive cycle. 

We also need to get back to the idea that the Forest Service 

should manage our forests for multiple use and sustained yield. 

While I appreciate the idea of the new Forest Service mantra, 

which is ‘‘Caring for the Land, Serving the People,’’ it doesn’t always feel like you are living up to it in Southeast Alaska and the 

Tongass area, and in other parts around the country. 

What would best serve the people of my State is a sustainable 

timber industry, and no one is suggesting that we should roll back 

the clock and engage in what some might consider irresponsible 

forestry management. Alaska has proven that robust development, 

tourism, and habitat can successfully coexist, and I know that 

there are many, many examples across the country. 

The elementary school where I went as a kid was once robustly 

funded by a thriving Federal timber program, but today it relies on 

Secure Rural Schools subsidies, which are harder and harder to 

find space for in our annual budget. This is a problem of the Forest 

Service’s own creation. So I look forward to hearing how the Forest 

Service proposes to correct it. 
3 

It is not a false choice to pursue both healthy local economies 

and healthy forests. We can have both. And if we work toward that 

as our goal, we will solve many of the problems that we currently 

face. 

We wouldn’t require hundreds of millions of dollars for subsidies 

to our logging communities. We could make great strides in reducing fuel loads in our Federal forests. And we could make advancements in technology that will result in commercial uses for currently nonmerchantable timber. Most importantly, we could have 

thriving and healthy communities and forests. 

During questions, I want to discuss several challenges that we 

are facing and hear your ideas for solutions to them. I would like 

to hear about the Forest Service plans for air tanker modernization, and aircraft availability this fire season, and then going into 

the future. I would also like to hear how the Forest Service proposes to increase revenues to counties while phasing out the Secure 

Rural Schools program. And I would also like to hear about any developments the Forest Service has made toward maintaining a sustainable timber industry in Alaska. 

Again, Chief, thank you for being here today. I look forward to 

your testimony. 

And with that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

FOREST SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski. 

And good morning and welcome, Chief Tidwell, and Budget Director Tony Dixon. Thank you for joining us today as we discuss 

the fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Forest Service. 

This is very important to New Mexico. We are home to seven national forests and one national grassland. We are also a hotspot for 

almost every management issue that the Forest Service faces: the 

economic activities of timber, mining, grazing, and recreation; the 

protection of wilderness, watersheds, and endangered species; the 

impact of disease, drought, and fire. 

In New Mexico, we are dealing with historic drought and devastating wildfires. The Las Conchas fire in 2011 destroyed over 

156,000 acres, half of it in the Santa Fe National Forest. It was 

New Mexico’s largest fire in history, but not for long. 

In 2012, the Whitewater-Baldy fires burned up almost twice as 

much acreage, 298,000 acres in the Gila National Forest. 

Then in 2013, the Silver fire, 138,000 acres burned also in the 

Gila, the third largest fire on record in our State. 

I commend the Forest Service for their efforts to fight these fires 

and to repair the damage. The Burned Area Emergency Repair program was a great help to stabilize the burned-over landscape, clean 

up cultural and heritage sites, and repair trails. That war continues. Even with these funds, it will take many years. 

And the changing climate is making this type of fire more likely. 

More and more trees are dying across the southwest due to historic 

drought and increased temperatures. Winter warming has worsened bark beetle outbreaks by allowing more beetles, which normally die in cold weather, to survive and reproduce. Wildfire and 
4 

bark beetles killed 20 percent of trees in Arizona and New Mexico 

forests from 1984 to 2008. 

The danger is clear and growing. It is crucial to fund programs 

that reestablish healthy, resilient forests that can withstand fire 

and disease. 

I totally agree with what the Chairman said in terms of talking 

about sustainable forestry. I think that is something that the two 

of us can agree on, and I would like to work with you on that. 

We can’t keep borrowing, though, on this Forest Service situation, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We have to move beyond 

the cycle we are stuck in. We can’t keep fighting fires with money 

borrowed from programs that help prevent them. The Forest Service needs to be able to pay for firefighting without gouging its other 

mission areas. 

Firefighting now takes 47 percent of its budget, compared to just 

13 percent in the early 1990s, and that is clearly, Chief, as you 

know, not sustainable. 

The disaster cap proposal included in the budget is an opportunity to both stop the borrowing and, at the same time, dedicate 

funding to restore our forests. I look forward to talking about how 

we can work together to get this proposal signed into law. 

I am also looking forward to discussing with you a number of the 

regular proposals in the budget, including a $20 million increase 

for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program. New 

Mexico has two ongoing collaborative projects. I would like to talk 

about how this increase will be used and whether it could help 

projects in my State. 

There are other management issues to consider as well. The 

budget again proposes the consolidation of major accounts within 

the National Forest System into the Integrated Resource Restoration line item. This began as a pilot program, as you know, Chief, 

in fiscal year 2012, in the three Forest Service regions. That includes all of New Mexico’s national forests, which are also undergoing management plan revisions under the new 2012 planning 

rule. So I hope to hear more about that process. 

Finally, the budget includes an additional $8 million for Forest 

Legacy projects and $15.5 million for Land Acquisition. New Mexico projects are not included on either list this year, but full support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is as important as ever. LWCF is vital to protecting our public lands, and 

I look forward to hearing from you, Chief Tidwell, and to discuss 

these matters with you this morning. 

And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

With that, let’s go to the Chief this morning. Welcome to the subcommittee. 

And, Mr. Dixon, we appreciate you being here as well. 

I would like to get right in to the Chief’s comments, so we can 

move to questions and answers. If members have an opening statement that they would like to submit for the record, we are happy 

to include that. But let’s, at this time, invite the Chief to present 

on behalf of the Forest Service. 
5 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, 

Senator Tester, Senator Daines, I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here today to talk about the fiscal year 2016 budget request for the 

U.S. Forest Service. Once again, I really appreciate the work we 

have been able to accomplish over the last year working together 

to address the needs of our communities, but also primarily to help 

restore our Nation’s forests. 

I just want to highlight a few of the key points of our budget request. 

The first one is that this budget request will continue to allow 

us to increase the pace and scale of restoring our Nation’s forests 

and grasslands by doing restoration on 2.9 million acres, restoring 

over 3,200 miles of streams, restoring 2,000 miles of road, improving the ecological condition on 20 key watersheds, and producing 

3.2 billion board feet. This is one of the key outputs that come off 

our restoration work, and it basically reflects about a 33 percent 

increase from when I first addressed this subcommittee 5 years 

ago. 

It also is asking for additional money, an additional $20 million 

to expand the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program 

(CFLRP). This program has proven the benefits of making 

multiyear commitments of funding to large landscapes, and I am 

anxious we will be sending a 5-year report on the CFLRP accomplishments. We will be sending the report to the Hill next week. 

I also want to be able to use the additional money that we are 

asking for in our Integrated Research Restoration budget line item. 

We are asking for another $27 million. Part of that I would like 

to use to do a pilot approach similar to CFLRP, but in the landscapes in the country that are not dominated by fire-dependent ecosystems. 

If you look at the CFLRP map, you see where those 23 projects 

are spread across the country, there is a couple big parts of our 

country that do not have any projects there because they do not 

have these fire-dependent ecosystems. But I would like to be able 

to take a pilot approach to be able to use a similar concept to be 

able to make a multiyear commitment of funds to be able to address the forest health issues in those parts of the country and at 

the same time be able to sustain the integrated wood products industry. 

This budget request does maintain the significant increase in 

hazardous fuels funding that you granted us last year, so that we 

can continue to treat another 1.7 million acres of hazardous fuels 

in wildland-urban interface. 

It will also allow us to maintain the level of preparedness resources so that we will continue to suppress 98 percent of all 

wildland fires where we take initial attack, while dealing with now 

over 58 million acres of wildland-urban interface. 

The budget request does ask for a fire cap adjustment to deal 

with the cost of fire suppression. This is an approach that I really 

appreciate the support of the members, and their leadership, to be 

able to find a legislative solution. But it is past time for us to find 

a fix and to stop the transfer, to stop having to shut down oper-
6 

ations in August, be able to move funds from all the programs 

across the country, to be able to pay the cost of fire suppression, 

and then just have Congress appropriate the money to pay it back 

in the next year or the year after. 

So this is, I think, our best opportunity, once and for all, to finally solve this problem. 

With the budget fire cap adjustment, our request still includes 70 

percent of the 10-year average. The 10-year average went up between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. The 10-year average 

went up $115 million this year. I think it is just another example 

of why we need to find a different approach to address fire suppression cost. 

With the fire cap adjustment, we still would be funding the suppression on probably 99 percent of our fires through our appropriated budget. It is just about 1 percent of our fires that result in 

about 30 percent of the costs. We would like those fires to be considered a natural disaster. 

Those are the fires that impact our communities, where we spend 

the millions of dollars on it. And just like last year, the top 10 fires 

we had last year, were the most expensive fires, $329 million. So 

I think last year was just another example that really supports this 

legislative solution of being able to recognize that this very small 

number of fires, this 1 percent of the fires, should be treated as a 

natural disaster. 

This budget request does ask for some increases in the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and our Forest Legacy Program. 

When I look at the projects that we are proposing to fund with this 

additional money, it has been my experience that the acquisitions 

are on relatively small tracks. It has been my personal experience 

that, in every case, it reduces the administrative costs; it removes 

boundaries we maintain; it allows us to be able to do restoration 

treatments across larger landscapes and not have to be worried 

about dealing with an isolated 640 acres. It also provides certainty 

for public access, even on some of these parcels that today the public is allowed to cross to be able to access the national forests. Nobody knows for sure if that’ll be there in the future, but by acquiring these parcels, it does guarantee public access. 

With our Forest Legacy Program, it also allows us to work with 

willing landowners to put a conservation easement on their land to 

allow them to keep their land and to keep it working versus having 

to sell it to some form of development. 

This budget request does include the increased request for Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA), and I appreciate, Madam Chair, you 

mentioning that. This is an essential program, not just for the Forest Service, but every State forestry agency, and industry. The timber industry relies on this information. 

It is essential that we be able to maintain, not only the quality 

of the information, but be able to expand it to include interior Alaska, but at the same time be able to reduce the frequency of how 

often we read the plots. As we see the changes that are occurring 

in our landscapes, they are driven by multiple infestations of insect 

and disease, fire, and climate change. There is a necessity for us 

to be able to increase the frequency of reading these plots so we 
7 

have the information that we need to make sure that we can sustain the Nation’s forests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Then, the last key part of the budget is our proposal to reauthorize Secure Rural Schools. I believe it is just essential that we find 

a way to reauthorize this program that has proven to be very successful, and to provide that safety net to our communities. At the 

same time, it has also provided funding for us to do additional restoration work that is strongly supported by our counties and our 

boroughs across the country. 

So thank you for letting me take a few minutes to just highlight 

a few points of this budget request, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify on the President’s budget request for the Forest Service for fiscal year 

2016. I appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service 

in the past. I look forward to continuing to work with members of the subcommittee 

to ensure that stewardship of our Nation’s forests and grasslands serve the desires, 

expectations, and interests of the American people. I am confident that this budget, 

paired with the passage of a wildland fire suppression budget cap adjustment, will 

allow the Forest Service to meet the increasingly complex challenges of natural resource management while fostering efficiency and demonstrating cost-effective 

spending. 

BUDGET REQUEST AND FOCUS AREAS

The President’s proposed overall budget for discretionary funding for the Forest 

Service in fiscal year 2016 is $4.9 billion. That is $130 million less than the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level, but it reflects strategic investments to increase forest restoration and reduce wildfire threats to communities. This budget focuses on five key 

areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, managing 

wildland fires, promoting safety, and building diversity and inclusiveness. It proposes a fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire management, contributes to long-term economic growth, and continues our efforts to achieve the greatest 

benefits for the taxpayer with the most cost-effective approach. This budget will enable us to more effectively reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more holistically, 

and increase the resiliency of the Nation’s forests and grasslands as well as the communities that border them. 

RESTORING RESILIENT LANDSCAPES

The Forest Service responds to the many stressors affecting our landscapes and 

watersheds by working to restore healthy, resilient forests and grasslands. By restoration, we mean re-establishing the functions and processes characteristic of 

healthier, more threat-resistant, and more resilient ecosystems, even if they are not 

exactly the same ecosystems that existed before. These efforts reduce carbon emissions and make forests and grasslands more resilient in the face of climate change 

as well as climate-related disturbances, such as wildfires and insect outbreaks. Our 

goal is to protect and regain the ability of America’s forests and grasslands to deliver all the social, economic, and ecological values and benefits that Americans 

want and need, both now and for generations to come. 

In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized a pilot program where multiple budget 

line items were combined into a single line item, Integrated Resource Restoration, 

in three Forest Service regions. Combining funds from multiple budget line items 

allows us to better integrate and align watershed protection and restoration into all 

aspects of our management. Results from the pilot program consistently show that 

budget planning is simpler and managers have more flexibility to complete restoration work. When programs are better integrated, it is easier to establish goals and 

set priorities. Given the demonstrated success of this approach in the three pilot regions, we propose to fully implement Integrated Resource Restoration across the en-
8 

tire Forest Service in fiscal year 2016, with a budget of $822 million. This level of 

funding and the associated outputs below are dependent on the passage of a fire 

suppression cap adjustment and will help us implement restoration projects to address insect and disease outbreaks in areas designated under the 2014 Farm Bill 

and to work with the States under our new Good Neighbor Authority. If funded at 

the requested budget level, we will use the Integrated Resource Restoration line 

item to treat 2.9 million acres to improve watershed function and resilience, sell 3.2 

billion board feet of timber, maintain over 52 percent of the watersheds across the 

National Forest System at a properly functioning condition, and improve the condition of up to an additional 20 watersheds. 

Created in 2009, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program encourages collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority landscapes. The 

program currently supports 23 large-scale projects for 10-year funding to implement 

priority restoration projects on National Forest System lands while engaging local 

communities and leveraging partner resources through collaboration, implementation, and monitoring. The projects support an array of restoration activities, including reducing hazardous fuels, restoring watershed function and resilience, increasing pollinator habitat, and improving forest vegetation and wildlife habitat. These 

collaborative projects help local economies by creating and maintaining jobs in rural 

communities, generating commercial timber and biomass for energy production, and 

restoring forest health while reducing the need for fire suppression in overgrown 

forests. The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget for the Forest Service includes a 

proposal to eventually increase funding authority for the program from $40 million 

to $80 million, with funding in fiscal year 2016 requested at $60 million. The funding increase will allow us to pursue up to 10 additional projects. Accordingly, the 

budget proposes extending authority for the program through 2024 to allow for full 

completion of new projects. 

The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget for the Forest Service sets the stage for 

restorative actions, providing the necessary infrastructure as well as the needed scientific and organizational foundations for ecological restoration. Our researchers 

will provide managers with the knowledge they need to make sound risk-based decisions to take restorative actions, partly through the Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change. The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget 

funds Forest Service Research and Development at $292 million. That includes $83 

million for Forest Inventory and Analysis, an increase of $13 million from the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. This additional funding will allow us to inventory the vast, 

remote forests of interior Alaska for the first time using state-of-the-art remote 

sensing technology combined with field teams to verify our initial results. 

It will also allow us to address 5 of the 11 provisions in the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis strategic plan, developed pursuant to direction in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

These provisions include improved forest carbon and biomass estimation, enhanced 

forest ownership study, improvements in land use and land cover research, 

annualized forest products monitoring, and inventorying the full base target of 15 

percent of plots in the East and 10 percent of plots in the West annually. 

BUILDING THRIVING COMMUNITIES

The Forest Service works to build thriving communities across the Nation by providing communities with the many economic benefits that result from sustainable 

multiple-use management of the national forests and grasslands, helping urban 

communities reconnect with the outdoors, and expanding the benefits that both 

rural and urban residents get from outdoor recreation. Rural communities rely on 

the landscapes around them for hunting, fishing, and various amenities. 

Forest-dependent rural counties and communities have long benefited from Forest 

Service payments to support rural schools, including payments under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. We propose reauthorizing the act through 2019. This will help timber-dependent rural communities 

transition to a more diverse, resilient economic model that is less reliant on the receipt of Federal financial support. 

Jobs and economic benefits stem from our administration of the National Forest 

System, including its multiple uses, as well as from investments in the activities, 

access, and infrastructure needed to deliver essential public services such as clean 

water, electrical power, and outdoor recreational experiences. The fiscal year 2016 

President’s budget for the Forest Service will focus on building thriving communities 

by providing jobs and benefits in two key areas: outdoor recreation and forest products. We will also continue to issue and renew grazing permits, execute timber 

sales, and permit other commercial uses of forests and grasslands nationwide. 
9 

Jobs and Benefits from Outdoor Recreation 

Spending by visitors engaging in recreation activities, including skiing, hiking, 

hunting, and fishing, supports more jobs and economic output than any other activities on the National Forest System. In 2012, outdoor recreation on the National Forest System supported around 190,000 jobs and contributed about $13 billion to the 

Nation’s gross domestic product. 

We offer a range of recreational opportunities across the National Forest System 

to connect people with nature in an unmatched variety of settings and through a 

plethora of activities. We will expand programs that demonstrate success and explore new partnerships that will leverage resources to help get more kids outdoors, 

up close and personal with nature. We will also reconnect visitors with America’s 

outdoor heritage and help them learn about the Great Outdoors, improving their 

quality of life as they become citizen-stewards of their public lands. The fiscal year 

2016 President’s budget would fund the Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness program at $263.9 million. Reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act through fiscal year 2017 would help us meet public demand for 

sustainably managed recreational facilities. 

We manage our infrastructure to ensure safety, protect water quality, and conserve wildlife habitat, especially threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. The 

fiscal year 2016 President’s budget includes a $33 million investment in Deferred 

Maintenance and Infrastructure Improvement to address the backlog of maintenance and repair of Forest Service facilities. 

Jobs and Benefits from Timber, Grazing, and Other Uses 

Through work on National Forest System lands, the timber and forest products 

industries, livestock producers, and minerals/energy production collectively support 

about 118,000 jobs. Each year, these industries contribute about $11.5 billion to 

America’s gross domestic product. In rural areas in particular, these uses deliver 

sustained social and economic benefits to communities. 

Our restoration work will create local jobs and help sustain communities, as will 

the sale of restoration byproducts. We will use traditional timber sales as well as 

our stewardship contracting authority to restore watersheds and healthy, resilient 

forested landscapes on National Forest System lands while engaging communities 

in management of their public lands. Our fiscal year 2016 target for timber volume 

sold is 3.2 billion board feet, up from 2.9 billion board feet in fiscal year 2015. We 

will promote woody biomass utilization and biomass markets and facilities, providing jobs and other community benefits. Local communities will also benefit from 

fuelwood, special forest products, and safe drinking water supplies from the national 

forests. 

However, the national forests account for only 20 percent of the Nation’s forested 

lands. The remainder is under State, private, tribal, municipal, or other Federal 

ownership. Private forests alone supply almost 30 percent of the Nation’s surface 

drinking water, provide habitat for 60 percent of at-risk species, and furnish more 

than 90 percent of domestically produced timber. Accordingly, our responsibilities to 

support sustainable forest management go far beyond the National Forest System 

lands. 

We will continue to support sustainable forest management on a landscape scale 

through a variety of educational and technical assistance programs for private forest 

landowners. Rural communities benefit from nearby forests, which provide local 

jobs, bolster rural economies and community infrastructure, and furnish opportunities for rural Americans to connect with the Great Outdoors. The fiscal year 2016 

President’s budget proposes maintaining our investment in forest landowner assistance through $23 million in funding for the Forest Stewardship program. 

Land Acquisition and Improved Public Access 

We join the U.S. Department of the Interior in requesting $400 million in discretionary funding and $500 million in mandatory funding for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2016, with all $900 million coming from mandatory 

funding in fiscal year 2017. Full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

supports the President’s agenda of improving public access. Accordingly, we will 

work with partners to protect critical forested landscapes from conversion to developed uses through $61 million in discretionary funding for the Forest Legacy Program, $8 million more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

Our Land Acquisition Program will provide access for people, protect critical ecosystems, and prevent habitat fragmentation. Land acquisitions provide proven value 

for the taxpayer, making it easier and less expensive for people to access their public lands—and easier and less expensive for the Forest Service to manage and restore the lands entrusted to our care. An analysis by The Trust for Public Land 
10 

1 A joint analysis between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior 

found that 1 percent of fires are responsible for 30 percent of suppression costs. 

showed that every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition returns $4 to the taxpayer. The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget proposes $63 million in discretionary 

funding for our Federal Land Acquisition program, an increase of $15.5 million from 

the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. Five million dollars of the discretionary funds will 

be used to acquire tracts to improve sportsman and recreational access to National 

Forest System lands. 

In and around our cities, we will work with partners to sustain and restore urban 

forests. This not only helps ensure widespread access to green space, but provides 

other vital benefits such as energy savings, flood and pollution control, and climate 

change mitigation. The vast majority of Americans live in urban areas and urban 

and community forests cover about 130 million acres, an area larger than California. 

Tree-lined streets and open spaces improve quality of life for millions of Americans 

and we will work with urban communities to protect and expand these amenities. 

The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget funds Urban and Community Forestry at 

$23.7 million. 

MANAGING WILDLAND FIRES

Increasingly severe fire seasons are one of the greatest challenges facing the Nation’s forests. The Forest Service will continue to collaborate with its Federal, State, 

local, and tribal governments, partners, and stakeholders on the implementation of 

the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy to safely and effectively 

extinguish fire when needed, use fire where allowable, manage our natural resources and, as a Nation, live with wildland fire. 

The Forest Service has one of the most effective fire organizations in the world 

and continues to keep almost 98 percent of the wildfires we fight very small. However, the few fires that do escape initial response tend to grow much larger far more 

quickly than ever before. In addition, the cost of fire suppression has soared in the 

past 20 years. 

We are again proposing a revised funding strategy for wildfire suppression. The 

fiscal year 2016 President’s budget proposes discretionary funding for suppression 

at a level represented by 70 percent of the 10-year average of fire suppression costs. 

This level of funding provides for suppression of 99 percent of the fires we fight.1

In addition, up to $855 million would be made available under a disaster funding 

cap adjustment to meet funding needs for fire suppression above the base appropriation. This strategy would provide increased certainty in addressing growing needs 

for fire suppression funding while better protecting non-suppression programs from 

funding transfers that diminish their effectiveness. Moreover, it would allow us to 

stabilize our investments in restoring forested landscapes, helping forests adapt to 

the growing effects of climate change, and preparing communities in the wildland/ 

urban interface for future wildfires. 

Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems 

Fire plays a beneficial role in maintaining the ecological stability of many landscapes, and the Forest Service is working with partners to restore healthy, resilient, 

fire-adapted ecosystems. Our goal, especially near homes and communities, is to 

prepare forests and grasslands to resist stresses such as drought and recover from 

disturbances, including wildfires. Our large-scale restoration projects are designed 

in part to restore fire-adapted forest types across large landscapes, including the reintroduction of periodic wildland fire where safe and effective. 

Developing new markets for the low-value woody materials we remove during restoration and hazardous fuels treatments will help offset the costs of these activities 

while providing new revenue streams for private landowners. Therefore, this remains a top priority for the Forest Service. We will continue to provide grants and 

other forms of assistance for wood-to-energy initiatives, and to help projects compete 

for other sources of funding. We will also provide technical assistance to help facilities that convert wood to energy become or remain financially viable. 

Building Fire-Adapted Human Communities 

More than 46 million homes in the United States, or about 40 percent of our Nation’s housing units, are located in fire-prone parts of the wildland/urban interface. 

We will continue providing scientific and analytical support to help these communities become fire-adapted. This work includes completing hazardous fuels treatments, preparing community wildfire protection plans, becoming designated as 

Firewise Communities through the national Firewise program, and obtaining equipment to respond to and mitigate wildfire. Our goal is to encourage communities to 
11 

adapt to wildland fire by establishing an effective emergency response plan and 

managing risk in a way that protects lives, property, and wildland resources. The 

fiscal year 2016 President’s budget proposes funding the corresponding Research 

and Development program at nearly $20 million and the Joint Fire Science Program 

at nearly $7 million, both about equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. 

We will control fuels in the wildland/urban interface by removing buildups of dead 

vegetation and thinning overly dense forests. We will focus on treating high-priority 

areas, including municipal watersheds to protect water supplies. The fiscal year 

2016 President’s budget proposes $359 million for our Hazardous Fuels program, approximately the same as the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

Responding Appropriately to Wildfire 

Where suppression is needed to protect homes and property, we will continue to 

deploy resources at appropriate places and times. Fire managers are using improved 

decision support tools to make risk-based assessments about 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. Our primary goal is always to protect life 

and property. Our collaborative interagency emergency response capacity, executed 

in cooperation with law enforcement, helps us accomplish this by focusing on preparedness for wildfire and other natural disasters and assuring an appropriate riskbased response. 

We will continue to maintain an appropriate level of preparedness. Our Preparedness program has proven its worth. Fire Program Analysis, a strategic management 

tool, shows that every $1.00 subtracted from preparedness funding adds $1.70 to 

suppression costs because of small fires that escape to become large fires. Maintaining an adequate level of preparedness will reduce overall fire management costs. 

The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget proposes $1.08 billion in Preparedness funding. 

We will continue pursuing our Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy. 

Airtankers play a crucial role in keeping fires small. In fiscal year 2016, the Forest 

Service expects to have up to 21 airtankers available. Fifteen will be next generation and six will be legacy. One of the 16 will be a Forest Service C–130H. Our 

strategy is to fund both the older aircraft still in operation (needed as we transition 

to newer aircraft) and the next-generation airtankers currently under contract. 

We will also continue leveraging State and local firefighting resources by providing State and volunteer fire assistance. State and local fire departments are the 

first responders to almost 75 percent of the Nation’s wildfires, so investing in their 

capacity is a high priority for the Forest Service. Federal grants are matched dollar 

for dollar, extending the value of our investments. We propose funding the State 

Fire Assistance Program at $78 million and the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program 

at $13 million, both nearly equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. 

PROMOTING SAFETY

Forest Service work can take us into high-risk environments. Ensuring human 

safety entails recognizing and managing these risks. For several years now, the Forest Service has been on a learning journey to become a safer organization. Our efforts have resulted in a reduction of work-related annual fatalities from a 5-year 

running average of 7.4 per year in 2009 to a current rate of 1.8 per year. We have 

also seen a 28-percent drop in new workers’ compensation claims (from nearly 3,700 

annual claims to 2,700 annual claims) over the same period. Our goal is to become 

a zero-fatality organization by continuing to make safety an integral part of our organizational culture. 

BUILDING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESS

At a time when the vast majority of Americans live in metropolitan areas, part 

of the Forest Service’s job is to reach out to urban and underserved communities 

to give more people opportunities to get outdoors, participate in public land management, and engage in conservation work in their own communities. Building on 

USDA priorities, we will create and retain a more diverse workforce that reflects 

American society. Diversity of thought is key to allowing successful organizations 

to respond to changing circumstances, and it stems from hiring people from varied 

backgrounds. We will strive to become an employer of choice for all Americans by 

continuing to treat everyone fairly and respectfully and giving everyone in our workforce the opportunity to contribute and succeed. 

We will expand access to the outdoors for underserved and minority communities 

and young people from urban areas by continuing to invest in programs designed 

to reach out to urban youth. We will also build on our work with partners to offer 
12 

opportunities for youth in urban areas to engage in conservation work in their own 

communities and on National Forest System lands. We will continue to support the 

President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, with its target of 10,000 students 

serving on public lands. Forest Service Job Corps sites established eight Public 

Lands Corps projects, enabling 1,825 Job Corps students to participate in 21st Century Conservation Service Corps projects. 

COST SAVINGS AND AVOIDANCE

The Forest Service is committed to achieving the greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the lowest cost. Mindful of the need for savings, we have taken steps to 

cut operating costs. Taking advantage of new technologies, the Forest Service has 

streamlined and centralized our financial, information technology, and human resources operations to gain efficiencies and reduce costs. We will maintain the $100 

million reduction in overhead costs (cost pools) implemented in fiscal year 2013– 

2014. 

In 2012, we adopted a new planning rule designed to reduce the length of time 

it takes to revise management plans, thereby reducing costs. We are also reducing 

costs by making our environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act more cost-effective. 

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 generate $152 million in partner funding. In 2010, 

we also signed an agreement to use municipal funds to restore fire-damaged national forest land in the municipal watershed of Denver, Colorado. Over 5 years, 

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

FUTURE OUTLOOK

For more than a century, the Forest Service has served the American people by 

ensuring that their forests and grasslands deliver a full range of values and benefits. Americans benefit tremendously from investments in Forest Service programs 

and activities. 

We are now facing some of the greatest ecological challenges in our history. 

Invasive species, climate change effects, regional drought and watershed degradation, fuel buildups and severe wildfires, habitat fragmentation and loss of open 

space, and devastating outbreaks of insects and disease all threaten the ability of 

America’s forests and grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services 

Americans want and need. In response, the Forest Service is increasing the pace 

and scale of ecological restoration. We are working to create healthy, resilient forest 

and grassland ecosystems capable of sustaining and delivering clean air and water, 

habitat for wildlife, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and many other benefits. 

Our budget request focuses on our highest priorities: restoring resilient landscapes; building thriving communities; and managing wildland fire safely and effectively, all while continuing to cultivate a highly diverse and inclusive workforce. We 

will continue to integrate our programs and activities while advancing on our journey toward becoming a safer organization that is more diverse and inclusive. We 

will also continue to reduce our environmental footprint and improve our administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness. 

This concludes my testimony, Madam Chairman. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or the subcommittee members have for me. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Chief. Appreciate the overview, 

the summary there. 

Let’s move straight to questions. Again to members, we will do 

6-minute rounds here. 

BIG THORNE SALE

I want to start off my questions this morning going local, talking 

about the Tongass. We spend a lot of time talking about the 

Tongass, and there has been a lot of discussion over the past several years about how the Big Thorne sale is going to be that sale 

that allows everything to kind of be pieced together. 

But you and I both know that not only is the timber sale caught 

up in litigation, but now even planning and other non-ground-dis-
13 

turbing activities associated with the Big Thorne sale are in jeopardy because of litigation through the Endangered Species Act. 

Now you have mentioned that the Forest Service has done significant work on endangered species issues relating to Big Thorne, 

but give me some reason for optimism this morning about the 

chances, the likelihood, of this sale going forward this spring as we 

need it to in order to, again, allow this all to be pieced together. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Madam Chair, you are aware of the preliminary injunction motions that we received on this sale. We have already filed our first brief on the first one, and we will be shortly 

filing our second brief on the second one. I am going to remain confident that we have done an adequate level of analysis to address 

the issues, that we have made changes in the decision to address 

those issues months ago. 

So I am going to remain confident that we are going to be able 

to get a favorable ruling and be able to move forward with the implementation of the Big Thorne sale. It is essential that we provide 

the bridge timber that is necessary as we transition to second 

growth. But it is also just another reason for us to be able to look 

at every opportunity we have while we are moving forward with 

the bridge timber, bringing the second growth timber supply online 

at the same time. I still think that is our best solution. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you about that because, in this 

day and age, when we are dealing with litigation based on our timber sales, quite honestly, we don’t have a lot of reason to be optimistic, and it is greatly concerning to me. Even if the Big Thorne 

sale makes it out of litigation, there is really nothing by way of additional volume behind it. We have Saddle Lakes and Wrangell 

that have been repackaged, reanalyzed, so many times, and yet we 

haven’t seen timber out of either of these sales. 

So what we have going on is kind of a repackaging, basically 

planning the same sale for five different times. That isn’t necessarily progress, because we are not seeing wood harvested. 

SADDLE LAKES SALE

So a question to you about your prognosis on the Saddle Lakes 

sale: Do you think that we are going to see that out this year? And 

if so, what will the volume likely be? And do you anticipate that 

we are going to get sued over that one as well? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I will not speculate on what will happen with 

litigation, but we are moving forward with the Kosciusko sale this 

year, and we are moving forward with Wrangell and Saddle Lakes, 

whether they’ll be offered this year or the next year. They’ll be no 

later than 2016, as part of our bridge timber. 

And we are committed to providing that bridge timber, but at the 

same time to be moving forward with bringing on some sales with 

the second growth. 

The solution here is also to look at these larger, multiyear contracts, just like we have with Big Thorne, so that there is some certainty. When I look at what it is going to take to move to second 

growth, we have to provide the certainty of the material, and at the 

same time provide support for retooling of the infrastructure there. 

If we can put that together with our bridge timber program, then 

I am confident that we can have a successful transition. 
14 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, you can probably see my expression. 

I am not confident at all. You have litigation that continues to be 

a huge hurdle. You are saying a certainty that is needed here, but 

yet you have this transition to second growth, where you and I 

know there is great question as how long it is going to take until 

that second growth is actually ready and will be able to provide a 

level of harvest that is going to make a difference in the total 

scheme of things. 

So this transition that we keep talking about is more theoretical, 

more on paper, than actually being able to translate. 

RETOOLING

Question for you, regarding litigation, how much is Forest Service spending in the Tongass responding to litigation? Then before 

my time is up, you mentioned the retooling efforts. I mentioned to 

you in the Energy Committee last week or 2 weeks ago about the 

skepticism that I had on the effectiveness of the transition plan 

and said I am hoping that the administration is still going to be 

there when it comes to retooling. We haven’t seen any of that. We 

haven’t seen this transition aid that we had talked about. You 

mentioned at that time that you were going to look into the issues 

with the Credit Reform Act and potentially reprogramming as it relates to transition assistance. So I would like to know whether you 

have any additional information on that Credit Reform Act, but 

also if you can give me the number on what we are spending on 

litigation with Tongass sales? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, your last question first, Madam Chair, is 

that we have looked into that, and we will not need to have a reprogramming request. We have the funding available and the authority to be able to now sit down and be able to look at how we 

can work together, provide the necessary grants, and to be able to 

move forward with retooling that infrastructure. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Will that happen this year? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are ready to move forward with it this year. 

We will probably be asking for assistance from your staff to be able 

to work with the mill owners about how to put a package together 

to be able to move forward with that. 

Then on what we are spending on litigation, I will have to give 

back to you on that. It is not something we normally track. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It has to be a huge expense for you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is the same staff that prepare the projects. It is 

the same staff that puts a lot of the planning together. They then 

have to be able to pull the information together to put the records 

together for the court and work with the attorneys. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, if you can get us that information, I 

think it would be helpful, Chief. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will give you an estimate of what it is costing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. All right, and we want to work with you on 

these retooling funds. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to let Senator Tester start on our side here with the questions. 

Senator TESTER. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you 

very much. 
15 

And thank you, Madam Chair. 

I guess the most important question I have for you, Chief Tidwell—it is good to have you here. And you, too, Tony. 

How’s the ticker? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Woke up this morning, Senator, and I feel great. 

Thank you for asking. 

Senator TESTER. Well, it is good to have you here. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Look, I don’t need to tell you how important the sawmills are as 

a partner to the Forest Service. We don’t want to drive these folks 

out of business, and then it all becomes a taxpayer-funded problem 

as far as forest management. I understand there was about 125- 

plus million board feet come out of the forests in Montana on about 

9,000 acres. Eighty percent from my figures were either post and 

poles or saw logs, and 20 percent was firewood. 

That sounds about correct? Your head is nodding? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, good. 

So in terms of sound forest management, are you happy with 

those numbers? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is not near enough of what we need to be doing 

to change the conditions on the landscape, to restore the resiliency 

of those forests, and to reduce the wildland fire threat to our communities. 

I have tried to be really clear about the challenge we have in 

front of us, and the need for us to increase the pace and scale of 

restoration of our Nation’s forests. 

Senator TESTER. So if you had a magic wand, what would that 

number be? Or do you have a number for Montana? Would it be 

double that, triple that, half again as much? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I would look at the number of acres. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. TIDWELL. And I think that is really a key point that we need 

to be really focused on. We are talking 9,000 acres, and I think 

there is around 17 million acres of national forest in your State. 

Senator TESTER. In Montana, yes. 

Mr. TIDWELL. When I look at the need there, we need to be treating a lot more of the 9,000 acres. I can give you a more accurate 

figure, but it definitely needs to be probably closer to at least four 

times that each year. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And so what is the challenge that your 

agency faces? Is it a manpower issue? What is it? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, definitely capacity is an issue. We are running at 35 percent fewer employees than what we had the last time 

we were approaching 3 billion board feet operations. We haven’t 

been able to implement a lot of efficiencies over the past. We are 

looking forward to moving forward with the Farm Bill authorities. 

Your State has been a leader on that. That is going to also help 

us. 

The other thing is that, and especially in your State, we need to 

be able to move forward with some larger landscape projects, similar to what we have done in your neighboring States, where we can 
16 

look at, not thousands, but tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres with one environmental assessment. 

FARM BILL

Senator TESTER. Amen. I agree with that. 

So let’s talk about the farm bill stuff for a second that came out 

of the 2014 farm bill. 

Your forest supervisors, are they fully engaged in that? Do they 

know the tools that are available? 

Mr. TIDWELL. They are. We are continuing to do addition training, and to be able to make sure they understand these new authorities and how to use those. It was there in the northern region 

where they did actually the first project. It was done last December. I think in your State, there are another five or six scheduled 

for this year. 

WORKFORCE

Senator TESTER. Okay, so I want to ask a little bit about manpower. In Region 1, our region, there are about 15 vacancies. That 

is about a quarter of your workforce. What are the implications of 

that from a forest management standpoint, and from a law enforcement standpoint, and a recreational standpoint? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we have had reductions in our workforce 

across-the-board and all the programs outside of our fire operations. So it has forced us to really set priorities about what work 

we can get accomplished, and recognizing there are just less employees than what we have had. 

At the same time, we continue to explore finding more ways to 

be more efficient. This budget request does allow for us to be able 

to get more forest restoration work done. It would allow us to be 

able to issue more contracts. It would allow us to actually hire a 

few more people. So it is moving in the right direction for us to be 

able to change this curve, this trend that we have been on. 

LAND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Senator TESTER. Okay, now I want to talk about the Land Water 

Conservation Fund for just a second. As you know, Montana has 

a number of collaborative efforts that are moving on, landscape 

scale, as you talked about, and forest management. I think LWCF 

plays a critical role in that success. 

Could you speak, and I have only a little over a minute left, but 

could you speak to what would happen if Congress fails to reauthorize LWCF, on a lot of the projects, whether in Montana or 

somewhere else? What would happen? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I think over time it would be more challenging for us to be able to address issues with endangered species, 

for instance. You would see some lands in your State and other 

States that would be converted to some type of nonproductive use, 

just because without the Forest Legacy Program, we would be losing that opportunity for conservation easements. Also, our costs for 

managing will stay the same because we still have to work around 

these small, isolated parcels. So you see those costs. 
17 

But I think one of the key concerns is that as we see more and 

more private landowners lock up their land and not allow the public to cross their land to access the national forest—and I can understand the reasons why they do that—that is what we have the 

potential to lose. 

So this program has been very successful, not only to provide certainty on access, but reduce costs. But especially in your State, 

when I look at the recovery of just the grizzly bear, and the work 

that we have done to acquire key parcels to provide connectivity between the various populations with grizzlies, without the LWCF 

program, there is no way we would have been able to acquire those 

corridors and be in such a successful position. We are now able to 

increase our active management because we provided for the habitat requirements for the grizzly bear. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, well thank you, Chief. I appreciate your 

answers, and I also, just in closing, would say that I think that the 

firefighting costs and the fire suppression costs, I support you on 

the cap adjustment on that. I think it is critically important if you 

are going to do your job on a lot of things you just talked about. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Senator Blunt. 

MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chief, I want to talk to you a little about the Mark Twain National Forest. This is a topic we talked about last year. Last we 

talked about the Collaborative Forest Landscape Program in the 

Mark Twain, and I asked you at that hearing whether or not there 

would be prescribed burns that year. You answered that this coming year, you said you didn’t know, that on that project they were 

going to be focused on doing timber harvest and not prescribed 

burning. 

Let me read that exactly so we know what you said. Your quotes 

were, ‘‘This coming year, I do know’’—‘‘I do know’’—‘‘that, on that 

project, they are going to be focused on timber harvest and not prescribed burning.’’ That is the end of your quote last year. 

Now your staff then did call shortly after that and said you were 

mistaken, and so we put in the language last year in the bill, the 

report language, including the language that the subcommittee recommends that no funds shall be used for prescribed fires under the 

Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands portion of the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration program (CFLRP) until such time as the 

controversy over whether it could possibly be successful was being 

resolved. 

There had been at least two burns in early February, so when 

we contacted the Forest Service on that, they said, well, we are actually conducting those burns under a different program. 

I thought the language was pretty clear that until we got this 

worked out that, we wouldn’t be conducting—or we recommended 

that you not conduct those burns. You just feel like the language 

just doesn’t give any direction? Or that you are not bound by what 

the subcommittee would like to see happen here? 
18 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we want to work with the subcommittee 

and, of course, follow the direction you provide. But on the Mark 

Twain last year, they sold 54 million board feet of timber and harvested 48 million. When I look at that level of activity, and then 

with the prescribed burning that we need to do to be able to maintain and restore those forests, we need to do that together. 

We want to use our timber sales to be able to remove the merchantable material and make full use of that, but then at the same 

time, prescribed burning is one of the tools that we use to reduce 

the residual material that is left after a timber sale. So we need 

to be able to maintain the use of both tools. 

Now I know that in the past, there was a prescribed burn that 

did burn up some merchantable timber. I understand that happens 

from time to time. But often, we can just come back in there and 

salvage that material. 

So we really do need to be able to maintain the flexibility to do 

both. But we are always going to focus on using a timber sale or 

a stewardship contract to remove the merchantable material and 

then use prescribed burning to be able to remove the undergrowth. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING AND SAVANNAH RESTORATION

Senator BLUNT. So your testimony today would be that the prescribed burn is for that purpose, and no longer for the purpose of 

trying to restore the Savannah from some past time until we know 

whether that is possible. That really was the discussion we had 

last year about whether or not we have really had the science to 

know if under today’s conditions you could ever restore the Savannah from a couple of hundred years ago, even if you burned everything down and started all over again. 

What are you burning for now? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Depending on which project—— 

Senator BLUNT. In the Mark Twain, are the burns to try to restore the Savannah, or are the burns to truly get under the fueling 

levels? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, it would be depending on which project. If we 

are following a timber sale, we would often use a prescribed burn 

to follow that. If we are trying to restore the Savannah, to be able 

to use fire, to be able to do that in conjunction with mechanical 

treatment, it is the work that needs to be done to restore these ecosystems. 

Senator BLUNT. Is there a study going on to determine whether 

the Savannah could be restored or not? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I am not aware. I will have to get back to you on 

that. 

TIMBER SALES AND MONITORING RESULTS

Senator BLUNT. All right, let’s get back on that. 

On the timber sales, while there is still a lot of timber left, and 

you and I know that. 

I will say, back to your earlier comment, the Missouri forest 

products industry believes that you have worked hard to try to 

identify in the last year harvestable and marketable timber. So 

that is a positive. I have not got a lot of positive things to say about 

this today, but that is a positive, and I do appreciate that. 
19 

But, Chief, we just keep having such a hard time getting information. Last year, I met with the regional forester, Kathleen Atkinson, and asked for proof that this program could work. The response was, we will get back to you on that. And, of course, we 

never—not ‘‘of course,’’ but we didn’t get any information. Actually, 

amazingly, we didn’t get any information when we got back on 

that. 

I brought this up to you last year. You stated that you would 

share the monitoring information from the project and research 

that guides the type of projects we are putting on the ground. I 

don’t think we got that information either. 

I don’t want to spend our time and effort here doing things that 

can’t work. In theory, in some of these burns, you are trying to restore a landscape from a couple hundred years ago. Surely, it is 

worth a little time to see the science of whether that is even possible or not. I am just asking to work harder with us to be responsive. 

These questions are not designed to create a problem for you. 

They are designed to try to help you and I together solve a problem 

and see if we are moving toward a point that is achievable. I don’t 

think that is too much to ask. 

I am just asking again today, Chief, to work with us on that and 

be more responsive to both the science that may be out there and 

the questions that we ask. I hope you can do that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I will personally look into this and provide you with the information we have from the monitoring and the 

science that supports the work that they are trying to get accomplished out there on the savannah. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Blunt. 

Senator Udall. 

FIRE DISASTER CAP ADJUSTMENT

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Chief, I wanted to focus in a little bit on the budget framework 

for fire suppression funding with the new disaster cap adjustment. 

As you know, this subcommittee worked very hard last year to pass 

this legislation as part of the 2015 Omnibus appropriations bill. Ultimately, we weren’t successful, but we can’t give up. 

The disaster cap is the key to breaking the cycle of fire borrowing 

and putting an end once and for all for the need to steal funds from 

land management programs to pay for emergency firefighting 

needs. Many of the programs that we borrow funding from to fight 

fires are the same programs that create a more resilient landscape 

to resist wildfire. 

Can you talk about how important this proposal is to the administration’s overall vision for reducing the threats of wildfires? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, it is essential. As we look at what 

has happened just over the last 13, 14 years, the percent of our 

budget has gone from around 14 percent to over 40 percent. If you 

add hazardous fuels funding into that, it gets to over 50 percent 

of our budget that is now focused on dealing with wildland fire. 

Under a constrained budget, and as much as I would like to tell 

you that the cost of suppression is going to go down in the future, 
20 

the 10-year average is going to continue to go up. I think there are 

2 years in the 10-year average that are less than $1 billion. When 

those fall off the average, you are going to see the 10-year average 

jump up. 

It is just essential that we find a way to recognize that we need 

to provide the funding for fire suppression the year that it is occurring. We are going to take whatever actions necessary to suppress 

fires where we need to suppress fires. As impactful as it is for us 

to have to stop operations and transfer funds, we have no choice, 

but we are going to do that. 

So we are going to pay for the cost of fire suppression one way 

or another. So the idea that we could just have a mechanism so 

that we could pay for it during the current year instead of shutting 

down operations and transferring money, and then asking for Congress to repay those funds the next year, or the year after—and I 

appreciate Congress’ willingness to pay back those funds over the 

years, but we cannot ever replace the time that we have lost. 

Often August and September, those are critical field months. 

When we shut down operations, we never get that time back. Often 

a project, even if it is just postponed, we often lose the window to 

be able to implement it. Conditions change on the landscape. So 

these are the impacts of this transfer that are very hard for us to 

quantify. 

Last year, we put out reports for every State that showed the impacts to each State from having to transfer money. But it did not 

begin to capture the impacts of just losing that time, and that field 

season that we lost. So it is essential for this program that we find 

a way to get this legislation passed and that we no longer have to 

transfer money each year, and recognize that a very small percentage, 1 percent of these fires, should be treated as a natural disaster, not unlike other natural disasters that we treat and fund accordingly. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chief. The one thing here that I 

think is important, we have the budget process coming up. I think 

it is very important, I hope you pass the message back to Secretary 

Vilsack and Secretary Jewell, that they work with the new budget 

chairs for the House and the Senate. I think if we can get it in 

there, we will have a much better chance to proceed. 

VALLES CALDERA NATIONAL PRESERVE

In just the little bit of time I have left, we talked yesterday—and 

thank you for coming into the office—about the Valles Caldera National Preserve. Could you tell us how you have resolved the funding issues there, and what you are working on, and what you see 

the plans are for that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we are working closely with the National 

Park Service. The lands were transferred last December, and the 

funding that was provided for the Valles Caldera, we have that 

ready to be transferred to the Park Service as soon as they have 

their budget structure set up to handle that. 

In addition, with the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

program (CFLRP) that encompassed part of the Valles Caldera 

along with the adjoining national forest, we were not able to transfer the CFLRP funds to the Park Service, but we are transferring 
21 

other appropriated funds to the Park Service to be able to continue 

that work that was planned for this year, and to continue to work 

with the trust that is in the process of implementing the work. 

So we have that money set aside, ready to be transferred to the 

National Park Service. So as far as all the work that was planned 

to occur this year in the Valles Caldera, that should all go forward 

as planned. 

Senator UDALL. Great, thank you very much. We really appreciate the Forest Service and the National Park Service working together to make sure that there is a seamless transition there. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Got a lot of Montanans here this morning. 

TIMBER SALES

Senator DAINES. That is right. Montanans on that side. Montanans on this side. 

Good to have you here this morning, Chief Tidwell. 

It was a month ago I was back home in Montana, travelled 

across the State. And we spent a lot of time talking about what is 

going on in our national forests and in timber. I was in Columbia 

Falls. I was in Missoula. I was in Bozeman. We were meeting with 

sawmill operators, sportsman groups, conservation groups, county 

commissioners. 

In fact, they have sawmill operators there who are looking at layoffs that happened last fall because of, frankly, stopped timber 

sales, and fears as spring breakup is coming up earlier in the West 

because of the warm February and the warm early start to March. 

To hear a sawmill operator concerned, he has his son who has 

some special medical needs, and to possibly lose their health insurance, have to go to Spokane every week just for this, just to hear 

these stories of the human condition right now as we face declining 

access here to timber. Yet, here we are surrounded by 17 million 

acres in Montana of forest, 11 million acres where they probably 

have access to if you subtract out the wilderness and the roadless 

areas, and we can’t get enough logs. 

I ask, what is the constraint? Why are the sawmills running at 

two-thirds capacity across the State? Because we can’t get enough 

logs, as we are staring at 11 million acres of timber that we could 

access on our Federal lands. 

The Forest Service anticipates selling 3.2 billion board feet of 

timber in fiscal year 2016. It is a modest increase over this year’s 

target. That is a step in the right direction, but my understanding 

the ASQ, the allowable sale quantity, in the plans by the Forest 

Service exceeds 6 billion board feet, twice as much as what is being 

sold today. 

We heard from groups across Montana a month ago, whether 

from the sawmills to the conservation groups, that increasing responsible harvest can have positive environmental and social impacts, reducing the risk of wildfire. It is not going to be the catchall, but it is part of management and risk reduction, improving 

wildlife habitat, improving watersheds, improving water quality, 

maximizing carbon sequestration in our forests, and expanding rec-
22 

reational opportunities. So we have got agreement on the spectrum 

back home. 

And I know, Mr. Tidwell, your volume targets are informed in 

large part by your resources and the time it takes to prepare and 

execute timber sales, as you have noted today. But setting aside 

those factors for a moment, do you agree that in principle that increasing responsible harvest, consistent with the forest plans, 

would have positive impacts on creating and sustaining forest-related jobs, as well as improving the health of the forest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. I mean, you mentioned the level of agreement 

that we have on what work needs to occur to restore these national 

forests. It is greater today than it has ever been in my entire career. We are seeing some progress being made in other parts of the 

country more than what we are seeing there in Montana, even 

though I appreciate the work that our folks did last year working 

with all of our partners—they basically put under contract the 

most acres and the most board feet that we have had in a long 

time. 

We are moving in the right direction, but it is not enough of 

what is needed to really restore these forests. We need to be able 

to look at these larger landscapes and to have more multiyear contracts in place, so that those mill owners can make the investments. They can take those contracts to the bank to borrow the 

money. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

Senator DAINES. It is shocking talking to the mill operators. 

When I asked where are you getting your logs today? And literally 

today—here we are surrounded by millions of acres of Federal 

lands in Montana—they are bringing logs in from Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, and Canada, to try to keep the mills operating. 

One of the challenges we are facing back home, and, certainly, we 

are talking about this all time, is looking what is going on with 

these objections and the litigation. 

Looking at the Region 1 staff data that was provided to us, since 

the beginning of fiscal year 2009, 46 of the 65 noncategorical exclusion National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) projects with a 

timber component were appealed, or more recently objected to. 

Twenty-five of the 65 were litigated. 

The problem we have now with our timber folks back home is 

they are giving up because of the uncertainty of pursuing the path 

down—some say, why aren’t they making more applications? Well, 

there is so much uncertainty now on the outcomes because of the 

objections and litigation and appeals and so forth, they are going 

out of State and even to Canada to get logs today. Even a number 

of the collaborative-driven projects have been litigated or have litigation pending—the collaboratives. Colt Summit was one of those, 

and the East Reservoir project on the Kootenay. 

In your recent testimony for the Energy and Resources Committee, you indicated that such obstruction has an adverse impact 

and clearly can divert Forest Service staff from clearing new timber 

sales. So focusing now on looking at solutions and working together 

on this, because I think we both agree we have a problem, I think 

requiring all projects to go through a pre-decision objections proc-
23 

ess was a good step, but events on the ground in Montana suggest 

it is not sufficient. It is not enough. 

What additional solutions do you support to further discourage 

unnecessary obstruction and litigation in Montana and other impacted States, so the Forest Service can be liberated to do its important work? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I think there are a couple things. We need 

to first maintain what is proving to be successful, and as you have 

mentioned, the collaborative efforts there in your State are making 

a difference. 

We have gone to court, and I will use Colt Summit as a perfect 

example. When we have gone to court there, we not only have the 

State and the county, but we have environmental groups that are 

standing with the Forest Service, arguing to the judge that this is 

a good project, this is a good timber sale. 

Senator DAINES. Just back on that, we agree on the 

collaboratives. I support that. But even our collaboratives are being 

litigated, so I think we need additional protections. I guess what 

I would ask is—I am running out of time here—would you commit 

to working with me to develop some mutually acceptable solutions 

here to work through this? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. I am more than willing to sit down with this 

subcommittee and with you personally to be able to look at what 

we can do as we move forward to be able to build on the success, 

to be able to get the treatment on the land that is necessary to restore these forests. 

I do believe the more that we can be talking about what is needed on the land, what we need to be able to do to restore these forests—and yes, one of the key outputs is going to be timber. It is 

going to be saw logs. It is essential that we maintain that integrated wood products industry. Otherwise, there is no way we are 

going to be able to do the work. 

Senator DAINES. Well, we were at 600 million board feet at the 

peak. We were at 100 million board feet last year. We have been 

pretty flat. And so what we are asking for here is—we understand 

we are never going to get the 600 million again, most likely. It has 

been an over 80 percent decline. We have lost 20 of our 30 sawmills—lost. 

But what we would like to see is let’s take that 100 million up 

to maybe 200 million, maybe 300 million board feet, off of our Federal lands. That would be a tremendous boost right now to our 

sawmills and to our timber industry back home, as well as making 

our forests healthier. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

And our counties right now are dealing with Secure Rural 

Schools (SRS) and so forth. They are in trouble because there is no 

more revenues coming off the forests. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, once again, I commit to work with 

you. I think your approach on that will be able to get it up to a 

sustainable level that not only the industry can rely on, but it will 

actually be enough acres being treated where we can make a difference, so that 10 years from now, we can have a different discus-
24 

sion about the conditions of the forest in your State versus having 

the same discussion 10 years from now. 

Senator DAINES. I look forward to that discussion, too. Thank 

you, Chief Tidwell. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Boy, you know, this conversation is just the same whether you 

are up north in Alaska or whether you are sitting there in Montana. It just is not improving. 

TIMBER HARVEST

You are talking about what is going on in your region. Last year, 

we noted in appropriations language that over the last 10 years, 

the timber supply in Region 10 up in Alaska has been constrained 

to less than 10 percent of the allowable sale quantity in the land 

management plan. We have seen handfuls of our small mills closed 

down. 

It just has not gotten any better. Whether it is in the Tongass, 

or clearly the comments we have heard from both you and Senator 

Tester here this morning, we talk about certainty and the need for 

longer term contracts. 

We are so with you there, Chief, so with you. In fact, we agreed 

so much that we included in the report language from fiscal year 

2015 a directive to you, and said that in order to restore confidence 

in this supply, and allow for investment in new facilities, we reminded you of the Forest Service pledge to prepare and offer the 

4-year timber sales. 

So we provided specific language. We directed the Forest Service 

to prepare and offer within 2 years the four 10-year timber sales 

as promised. So even when we provide that directive to give us that 

longer term contract, to give us that confidence, nothing on the 

ground changes. 

I don’t disagree that you have got a hard job here managing 

things, but I don’t know what to tell the folks in the Tongass anymore, the guys that are trying to hold on to some family-owned operations. And the only reason that they are still in existence is because they and their families, this is what they know. This is who 

they are. But they are no longer living in a timber community. 

They are living in a community that is trying to exist off subsidies 

that we throw them with Secure Rural Schools. It is sad. 

We can blame litigation. That is, certainly, a factor. But I think 

we also have to recognize that the commitments that we are receiving from the Forest Service are not translating into increased harvest on our forests. 

So I am discouraged. I am just discouraged, because I don’t know 

where the communities that I was born in like Ketchikan, or raised 

in like Wrangell, I don’t know where they go. 

RECREATION, HERITAGE, AND WILDERNESS

I want to talk about the other aspects of industry within the regional economy, because there is more than timber, we know that. 

There is fishing. There is tourism. 

Tourism is, of course, based on the recreational opportunities out 

there, and yet in the last 5 years, the recreation heritage and wilderness budget has dropped approximately 14 percent across your 
25 

budget. Alaska’s recreation budget has been hit extra hard, over 23 

percent over that same 5-year period. 

Tell me why the recreation programs in Alaska is disproportionately affected by past budget cuts compared to other regions, and 

what can the Alaska region expect from this 2016 budget increase? 

Is it going to have any impact on the issuance of operating permits? 

I am trying to figure out whether there is any good news here 

for the people in the Tongass, and I am searching hard. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Madam Chair, with recreation, it actually 

supports more jobs than any other activity we have in the national 

forests now. Over 200,000 jobs are supported through recreation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, that is clear in Alaska because we 

have run off the timber jobs. 

Mr. TIDWELL. And in the past, in Region 10, the Alaska region, 

they have taken a greater, not proportionate, share of reductions 

in recreation funding. We have had to make some very difficult 

choices over the years as we have seen our budgets under constraint. Our programs under constrained budget can be very limiting to what we are able to do. 

I do know that in fiscal year 2015, we did make a shift for recreation funding in Alaska. They received an increase in what they 

had been receiving in the past to address this inconsistency. So as 

we move forward, we are going to look at how to better balance all 

these programs together. 

This budget request does maintain the level of recreation funding. I wish it was more. But until we can fix this fire issue, it takes 

up so much of our constraint that we are going to continue to see 

these impacts. You will see slight increases there in your State 

with recreational funding, but this is something that needs to be 

addressed across-the-board. 

We just have to find some ways to fix the fire suppression issue, 

so that we can have more flexibility within our budget requests to 

be able to address these issues. 

ROADLESS RULE

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, Chief, I carry with me in the file that 

I haul everywhere a few maps, because I am big into maps. And 

if your policies are going to shut off our timber opportunities in the 

Tongass, and you say, well, move to recreation, move to tourism, 

and you disproportionately reduce those dollars that go to Alaska, 

and then you tell us that part of the plan is we have to move towards more renewable resources. We absolutely agree there. But 

yet, we don’t have the ability to get around the roadless rule in 

Alaska. 

It just kind of suffocates you after a while, and you have seen 

my big map, the roadless area inventory. For colleagues, this is the 

whole southeastern part of the State of Alaska. This is also the 

Tongass, because Southeast is the Tongass. Everything in red is 

categorized as roadless under the roadless rule and is not available 

for renewable hydroelectric power or other development. 

So timber reduction and recreation, not even available for accessing renewable hydroelectric power or other development that will 

allow us to reduce our energy costs. 
26 

These are tough hearings for me, Chief. They are tough because 

the people of my State bear the consequences. 

So my time has expired. I am going to turn to my colleague. 

Senator Udall will let Senator Leahy take a breath, or if he’s 

ready to go, we will turn to him. I am done here. We will defer 

here. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Leahy, we are ready for you to go if you 

want, or I will go ahead. 

Senator LEAHY. Why don’t you go ahead? 

SOUTHWEST ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INSTITUTE

Senator UDALL. Okay, thank you very much. 

Chief, the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute, which is a 

collaboration between New Mexico Highlands University, Northern 

Arizona University, and Colorado State University, and the Forest 

Service, is a terrific source of applied research and ideas for improving forest health, preventing wildfires, protecting watersheds, 

creating jobs connected to national forests. 

With increasing effects from climate change, like prolonged 

droughts and less snowpack in our national forests, there are additional strains on the critical water resources in New Mexico. The 

institute I think does great work in engaging and educating people 

in New Mexico on forest and watershed management, and I can’t 

see a better time for them to be doing this kind of work. 

Despite the benefits of the Forest Service, the funding for the institute has kind of stagnated in the last few years at $1.5 million, 

even though they have submitted appropriate and timely projects. 

Do you feel this level of funding is adequate for the good work the 

Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes do? And is the funding 

for the three individual institutes based on their annual submissions of projects, or is it just based on historic levels of an archaic 

formula? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, just like with so many of our programs, we have had to make some very difficult choices about setting priorities with our constrained budget. Where I wish we could 

provide additional funding for the institute, I do feel that the funding we are providing allows them to build and continue their programs. 

They have been very helpful in the past, especially when they 

first started to pull the information together about the different 

treatments we need to do with ponderosa pine in different parts of 

the southwest. Your questions about water, drought, that needs to 

be addressed are another good reason for this institute to continue. 

We leave it up to the institute to decide the funding between the 

different facilities, but I feel that this is a good balance for where 

we are at right now. In the future, if we once again can get into 

a different budget situation, no longer having to put so much of our 

budget into fire, this would also provide us an opportunity to expand these programs. 

Senator UDALL. That is why I led with the fire cap situation, because I think we need to work with you on that, so the other good 

programs that are going on in the Forest Service budget, that they 

are able to be funded. 
27 

COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

Shifting now to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

program, New Mexico is home to two of the 23 current Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects. By all reports, these 

projects are succeeding in improving habitat and watershed quality, creating employment for youth and adults from nearby Pueblos, Native American Pueblos, and increasing timber production. 

The President’s budget calls for an increase of $20 million for the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program from $40 million to $60 million. What are your plans for the additional funding 

requested? Will you start new projects or provide higher levels of 

funding to existing projects? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, it will be both. With the success we are 

having with the 23 projects, there is a need to provide some additional funding to those 23. But at the same time, we also want to 

expand and be able to look at adding additional projects online, recognizing that all of these projects, it takes a few years for them to 

become fully effective. That is what we are seeing with the projects 

that we have had online now, some of them for 5 years, some for 

3 years. 

The report we will be sharing next week, will show the accomplishments that we are making. These exceeded, when it comes to 

acres of restoring our forest vegetation. The key output of timber 

has exceeded. Areas about dealing with road conditions is an area 

we need to expand work in, and also in noxious weeds, another target area. 

When we have talked to all of these 23, they all feel very confident they are going to meet their 10-year goals, so we want to use 

this report, we will be sending up, as another reason why we 

should expand this program. It is really making a difference. 

The other key thing is that many of these projects, without this 

program—and this comes from the members of the collaboratives— 

they’ll tell you that without this, there is no way we would have 

been able to look at doing projects on 10,000 to 20,000 acre areas 

without extensive appeals and objections or lawsuits. That is the 

other benefit of this program. The way it is designed, the collaborative requirements that have gone a long way to reducing the conflicts and controversy, and allows us to be able to do these projects 

on much larger scales, and that is an additional benefit. 

Senator UDALL. And you really hit it on the head. I think the two 

projects in New Mexico, the Southwest Jemez Mountains project 

and Zuni Mountains project near Gallup, New Mexico, they have 

worked collaboratively. Where you may have had a situation where 

there was litigation or it was slowed down, because of this collaborative work, they have been able to move forward. So we appreciate 

all the good work there. 

Senator Daines, did you have another round? 

Senator DAINES. I do, and then I will be finished. 

Senator UDALL. Okay, that is fine. I am finished. 

TIMBER HARVEST TARGET IN MONTANA

Senator DAINES. All right, appreciate it. 
28 

So I want to go back. Senator Tester brought up a point of discussion. You indicated that, ideally, harvests in Montana national 

forests could be at four times in terms of acreage. I think it was 

that 9,000-acre question, that we could increase by four times the 

number of acres versus what is currently being done. And just looking at the numbers, I know in Montana last year, about 113 million 

board feet is what was harvested. Our allowable sale quantity 

(ASQ) for Montana Federal lands is 371 million board feet, and I 

think our sustainable long-term yield is 440 million. 

There is an old saying, ‘‘If you aim at nothing, you will hit it,’’ 

so I just want to get to the numbers here for a moment. 

Of that 113 million board feet that was harvested last year, a 

significant part of that, about a third, was firewood. As we are 

looking at moving forward trying to increase these numbers, do you 

think given the acreage, the four times the number that was discussed, do you think it would be reasonable to suggest we might 

be able to at least double our volumes, given that we are a quarter 

of our long-term sustainable yield, we are a third of our ASQs. I 

mean, seems like doubling would not be unreasonable? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, I think last year, the region met its 

target, self-imposed target, close to 300 million board feet. That 

shows you an example of the work that needs to be done, and be 

able to sustain that and actually build on that. 

I go back to my time when I was in the region, and when we 

looked at the conditions of the forests and what really was needed—the level of treatment, the number of acres that needed to be 

restored—that 300 million board feet, it is just one of the key outputs. But it does reflect on the number of acres that need to be 

treated. 

Your other point that you made about the biomass that is being 

removed, it is a combination of saw logs, posts and poles, and firewood. I think the more that people understand what we are about, 

what we are trying to accomplish on the landscape, I think that 

can go a long way to address some of the conflict we still see in 

Montana. 

There are perceptions out there that folks believe that when we 

are proposing restoration work that includes a timber sale, that it 

is a clear cut from ridge top to streamside. Then they base a lot 

of their opposition on that level of concern versus the reality that 

we are restoring these forests, thinning out these forests. 

Senator DAINES. They are healthier forests. It is environmentally 

the best thing we can do right now. It’s responsible timber practices. 

I guess coming back to the point, do you think, just looking at 

the raw metrics here, that if we are at 113 million board feet, and 

we were once at time at 600 million, and we have got ASQs at 371, 

long-term has a 440, I mean, thinking of getting something between 200 million and 300 million board feet seems like a reasonable target to shoot for. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The 300 million board feet is very reasonable. 

OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES: MINIMUM WAGE EXEMPTION

Senator DAINES. Okay, thank you. 
29 

I want to shift gears for a moment to an issue our outfitters are 

having back home. Outfitters and guides in Montana, they are the 

ultimate small-business owners in Montana. Usually, it is a husband and wife running the operation. They don’t have a big human 

resources department. They don’t have a legal department. It is 

usually a couple folks trying to make ends meet. 

They have expressed concerns to me about the Forest Service application, the Department of Labor final rule enforcing the new 

minimum wage regulations for Federal contractors. 

I really think the States could take the lead in this issue. The 

State of Montana recognizes this industry of outfitting is unique. 

It is a unique industry in Montana. It serves an important purpose, 

to protect our outdoor heritage and, certainly, the unmatched landscapes we have. 

In fact, Montana has carved out in exemption for outfitters and 

guides in its overtime pay requirements because of the nature of 

the business. 

Chief Tidwell, considering the severe economic impact on these small businesses in looking at this $10.10 mandate coming out of 

Federal Government, and the value that outfitters and guides provide to public lands, would the Forest Service consider a similar exemption to overtime requirements like we did in the State of Montana? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, we are currently looking at the Department of Labor’s rule to really understand the flexibility that is 

provided within that rule, especially when it comes to outfitters 

and guides. I fully recognize the problems, and the issues. 

I want to first take the time that we need to fully understand 

the flexibility that is within the Department of Labor rule, so that 

we can move forward with this in a way that also will work for the 

outfitters and guides. 

Senator DAINES. And they have been a great partner. I know 

they have worked together on performing trail maintenance, wildlife monitoring. It is kind of the boots on the ground out there, in 

terms of what is going on in our national forests and the wilderness. I just would ask if you would take into account the impacts 

on the outfitting industry in this proposed rule coming from the 

Federal Government and will work with our State folks back home. 

We have solved that problem in the State of Montana by carving 

out an exemption with the uniqueness of the outfitters and overtime. 

This is not just punching the clock in that kind of business. I 

would just ask if you would help us on this. They are very, very 

concerned as they are looking at their permits going forward and 

how they make ends meet with these mandates coming out of 

Washington. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I share your concerns, understand their concerns, about how to move forward with this in a way that is fair, 

and also, at the same time, that it is workable for them. The last 

thing we want to do is to put anyone out of business. That eliminates the jobs. 

Senator DAINES. It does, and they have these great stories where 

they are taking some of these kids where they maybe have challenging pasts. They bring them out for a summer. They spend a 
30 

summer in the wilderness, out there with an outfitter, and they are 

life-changing experiences for these kids. There are concerns that 

they can’t provide those opportunities with these mandates on 

these wage issues coming out of Washington. They just don’t make 

any sense for us on the ground back home. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we are anxious to fully understand the flexibility that is provided in the rule, so that we can look at it. We are 

in somewhat of a unique situation. When it comes to a contract to 

do roadwork or something like that, the proposals can factor the 

additional wages into their bids, so it is equitable, it is easy. With 

our outfitter and guide permits, especially since they don’t all expire at the same time either, so that is the other challenge. 

Senator DAINES. That is the exemption, the carve-out that we are 

looking for that would be helpful. 

Thank you. I am out of time. 

Senator UDALL. The Senator’s time has expired. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Leahy. 

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Chief, good to see you. Mr. Dixon, good to see you. 

We have a lot of people, as you know, who when they talk about 

the U.S. Forest Service, think first and foremost of the National 

Forest System. Of course, those of us who live in the Northeast and 

those in the South know you do a lot of work beyond the national 

forest boundaries. 

You have a lot of support of private forest landowners. Owning 

a tree farm in Vermont, which we do without any subsidies, I will 

quickly add, I am well aware of what you do. And I am concerned 

we are losing private forestland at a very alarming rate, some to 

subdivisions, but usually conversion to nonforest uses. 

So I was pleased to see the strong funding request for the Forest 

Legacy program. This is near and dear to my heart since I included 

the program, back in the 1990 Farm Bill when I was chairman, but 

it has conserved close to 2.5 million acres of working forest. I mean, 

you know all these numbers. I just want to put it on the record. 

Fiscal year 2016, States submitted a list of eligible Forest Legacy 

projects that require $147 million in Federal funding and probably 

leverage another $90 million in private funds. But last year, we 

were able to fund this program at only $53 million. 

If we were able to increase the funding for Forest Legacy, do you 

believe that there is sufficient supply of top-quality projects across 

the country? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, there is no question. We have always had 

more requests with very high-quality projects than we are able to 

fund. These are projects that come from the States. Each State 

puts together their list and then they send it in. We have a national committee go through the projects and set the priorities. So 

these are strongly supported by the States, local communities, and 

they are all willing landowners. We have never, ever been able to 

come close to funding all the projects that we would like to. 
31 

Senator LEAHY. These are projects that you have looked at and 

said, look, they are valid projects, if we had the money, we would 

do it? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, there is no question about the validity and the 

benefits, not only to the landowner, but the benefits to the public 

with these projects. 

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME

Senator LEAHY. The other area I have been talking for years 

about is white-nose syndrome in bats. I remember when I first 

raised it, people thought I was referring to a character I heard 

about in a comic book named Batman. But as you know and I 

know, it is wreaking havoc across the country. 

We have a lot of farms and huge farms that suddenly are going 

to have to switch to use far more pesticides to control the pests 

that bats used to naturally keep in check. I think it is in around 

25 States, and is now one of the most destructive wildlife diseases. 

We are watching very closely in Vermont as the Fish and Wildlife 

Service considers what we do. 

Some are concerned that the endangered species protection of the 

Northern long-eared bat, it may actually be counterproductive. It 

may negatively impact our forestland management, but not do anything on white-nose syndrome. 

Are there resources the Forest Service can provide to help the 

private landowners to address dwindling bat populations, but also 

to encourage them in conservation practices? I realize that is a 

kind of a generalized question, but I hear it in various forms back 

home. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, first, Senator, thank you for your early recognition of this problem. I can remember when we first started 

closing access to caves, there was a lot of opposition to that and 

folks questioned the Forest Service. Fortunately, we were able to 

take some steps to slow down the spread. 

We are continuing our research to look at ways to be able to use 

native soil bacteria to maybe slow down the fungus, and using 

some ultraviolet light treatments to be able to reduce the effectiveness of the fungus. But, it is going to take a while for our bat populations to recover from the white-nose syndrome. 

At the same time, we have concerns about the potential listing 

of especially the long-eared bat, and if it could have any impacts 

on our ability to restore the Nation’s forests. So we are working 

very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service so that they have 

the science that we have about white-nose syndrome. Also, they’ll 

fully understand our practices when it comes to maintaining and 

restoring the Nation’s forests. And I look at having healthy, resilient forests as also good for the bats. 

Senator LEAHY. Your stewardship contracting authority, can that 

help? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, both our stewardship contracting authority 

can help, and also our Forest Stewardship program that we have 

that provides assistance to private landowners, so they can put in 

place the forestry practices that they need to be able to restore the 

forests and maintain sustainable forests on their private land. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 
32 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

I am getting a little more familiar with that bat of yours. I do 

understand it eats the mosquitoes, and that is a good thing. 

Senator LEAHY. Yes, I think we need really big ones to go after 

the mosquitoes in Alaska. I have heard you talk about getting the 

baseball bat and going after them. But I have actually seen a difference at our own tree farm in Vermont. When we sit out there 

in the evening, we could always count on several bats from a small 

bat cave about a quarter of a mile behind our house. Bats would 

come out and there would be no mosquitoes. Those bats have disappeared. The mosquitoes are now back. 

I don’t mean that as a scientific analysis, but I can just imagine 

what it must be like if you have hundreds of acres of farmland, and 

you count on the bats to keep the pests down. This is a problem. 

TSUNAMI DEBRIS

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate you bringing it up. 

Chief, I have just a couple more Alaska-specific, and then my 

final question will be as it relates to the air tankers. This first one 

is just more of a heads-up. 

I met with the head of NOAA, Dr. Sullivan, and mentioned to 

her when we are talking about tsunami debris clean up along Alaska’s coastal shores, we have great efforts, collaborative efforts, to 

address the tsunami debris. But, as you know, so much of the land 

along our coast, whether it is in the Tongass or up into the Prince 

William Sound area and the Chugach, these are our national forest 

areas, once the debris is collected, you have got to cache it somewhere until it can be airlifted out or barged out. 

It was brought to my attention that they had had great cooperation working with the folks at the Chugach, in terms of dealing 

with Forest Service lands and being able to talk cooperatively, but 

not so much on the Tongass. Now, we are trying to chase it down, 

but what I was told was that basically the Forest Service in the 

Tongass had said don’t bring the junk up above the tidelands, we 

don’t want that to be our problem. 

We are chasing that down, because I understand there have been 

good cooperative efforts in marine debris cleanup in the lower part 

of southeast, but I am just giving you a heads-up on that. I don’t 

ask you to address it today, but just to be aware of it. 

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT, TRANSPORTATION

EQUALITY ACT (SAFETEA)

One thing that did come to our attention just yesterday was a 

letter that the Governor sent our delegation. It was pretty distressing. It said that the Government, your agency, is refusing to 

follow a 2005 agreement with the State after Alaska has fulfilled 

its side of the agreement years ago. This is relating to Federal 

highway funding back in 2005 under SAFETEA–LU. 

The State had granted the Federal Government access easements 

across all submerged lands in return for the Federal Government 

granting easements for State transportation projects across some 

identified corridors that were identified by a map in Section 4407 
33 

of the law. The act said, not withstanding any other provision of 

law, this agreement was approved. 

So now we have the Forest Service saying it cannot provide the 

easements within the corridors identified back in 2005 because of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues and concerns 

that NEPA reviews are required, and because the corridors aren’t 

inventoried roadless area lands. 

Looking at that letter and given the language of the Section 

4407, it is just not acceptable. Congress exempted the corridors 

from NEPA. It exempted the corridors from inventoried roadless 

regs, even though, at the time, the roadless rules in effect in Alaska, because of the 2003 settlement agreement between the State 

and Forest Service—an agreement that the administration lost little time in not supporting once court review began again. 

So I don’t know whether you are on top of this issue. It just came 

to my attention. And again, it is very, very unsettling, and just not 

acceptable. 

I don’t know if you have comment on that at this time. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I am not aware of this. I appreciate you 

bringing it up. I will look into it. 

AIR TANKERS

Senator MURKOWSKI. All right, I would appreciate that. So we 

will talk back and forth on that. 

Then the question that I alluded to in my opening was where we 

are with air tankers, and I don’t think any colleagues have brought 

it up here this morning. But I think we all understand the need 

to modernize our air tanker fleet. The fiscal year 2015 omnibus 

provided $65 million for air tanker modernization. I understand 

that at this point in time, you haven’t finalized the plans to spend 

out the money, but a few questions about where you may be going 

with this. 

Have you conducted a cost comparison between acquiring air 

tankers and contracting planes? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, with the funding that was provided in fiscal 

year 2015 to acquire an aircraft, we have entered into a contract 

to get a business case prepared to be able to look at what is the 

best way to move forward, which aircraft to acquire. We have done, 

in the past, some analysis between government-owned aircraft 

versus contract-owned aircraft, and we can provide the information 

that we put together on that. It is part of our overall strategy. 

This year we will have 21 large air tankers under contract by the 

peak of the fire season, in addition to being able to bring down 

planes from Alaska and Canada. Then also, we always have the 

mass units that are in reserve for that. 

Then we will be moving forward with bringing on the C–130Hs 

that were provided to us. We will have one late this fire season 

that will have a mass tank in it, and it will probably be around 

2016 or 2017 before we bring those planes on. 

We are looking at the cost to operate those government-owned 

versus contract. They are going to be comparable costs as far as operation and maintenance. We are going to contract out both the operation and the maintenance of those large air tankers. But we feel 

we need to have a mix of contracted aircraft and also government- 
34 

owned, just so that we are never in a position like we were a few 

years ago, where we had to cancel a contract and it put us in a 

really tough situation in the middle of fire season. 

So having a combination of both where the government will own 

a few aircraft, and it will be contracted out for operation and maintenance, and then the majority of our fleet will be contracted aircraft, we see that as the best path forward. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So is that how you are going to be entering 

this coming fire season with this mix? And again, have you resolved or completed your analysis on the cost comparisons here? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we have done cost comparisons with the C– 

130Hs which are being provided to us. Those costs are going to be 

comparable to what we have with our contracted fleet. 

This year, we will have all contracted aircraft. The first C–130H, 

we will bring it on probably late this year. It will have a mass tank 

in it. We will use the aircraft in some limited basis just understanding some of the changes we want the Air Force to make on 

them before we receive the other planes. But this year, we will be 

only operating with the contracted aircraft. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And then next, hopefully? 

Mr. TIDWELL. They’ll be coming on probably in 2016 and definitely in fiscal year 2017. We should have at least three of them. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay, thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS AND LAND GRANT HEIRS

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just a couple of more questions here, Chief, from me. 

As you are probably aware, and I think we talked a little about 

it yesterday, but my State has a unique history with early Spanish 

settlers who received land grants from the King of Spain. We are 

talking now going back 400 years, in that range. These grants were 

subsequently recognized under Mexican law, and finally, to an extent, by the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 

at the end of the Mexican-American War. 

These non-Indian traditional communities still practice activities 

they have practiced with their families for generations. They do 

things like harvesting pinon nuts in the forests. They collect latias, 

which are utilized in buildings. They gather wood for heating in 

the winter and a variety of other projects. 

Most of the original land grant lands now overlap with Federal 

public lands primarily managed by the Forest Service, so it is important that these activities are considered during the current 

management plan revision process. As you know, your forest management plans are going through a revision in New Mexico, and 

that is happening in all of our national forests. 

So will you commit to work with the land grant heirs in New 

Mexico to provide reasonable access and consultation on land management decisions? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, yes. Our foresters are already reaching 

out to these folks to make sure that they are involved in the forest 

planning. I think on the Cibola, they even have them signed up as 

a cooperating agency, which I think is probably even the best way 

for us to be able to move forward. 
35 

So we can make sure we are factoring in their traditional uses 

of the land in our planning. I feel very confident that we will be 

able to work closely with them to be able to continue these traditional uses. 

FOREST SERVICE BILINGUAL OUTREACH

Senator UDALL. Great, thank you very much. 

And, Chief, this is also related, because as you probably know, 

related to the last question, we have a large bilingual Hispanic 

population. I think the numbers is, in more than a third of the 

households in New Mexico, Spanish and English are spoken in the 

home. Many listen to Spanish-language radio and watch Spanishlanguage TV. 

Can you talk about the Forest Service’s bilingual outreach to 

Hispanic families and to Hispanics in New Mexico, if you are familiar with that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. We have increased our efforts, not 

only our written products that are also produced in Spanish, but 

also to increase the opportunity where, if we need a translator in 

discussions we are having, whether it is with grazing permittees or 

just with operators, many of our employees in your State are also 

Spanish-speaking. So we are fortunate that we have that level of 

diversity in our workforce. 

But we want to take every effort that is necessary so that there 

are ways that everyone understands the full benefits of their national forests, about how to take advantage of this, how to understand the rules and regulations. We know that we have to increase 

our efforts to make sure that we are communicating. 

In your case, we are trying to make sure that all of our written 

materials are also put out in Spanish, and at the same time make 

sure we have the language skills necessary to be able to communicate effectively. 

Senator UDALL. We actually have a constitutional requirement in 

New Mexico for bilingual materials at the State level, to show how 

much that Spanish history is reflected in our constitution. 

LAS CONCHAS FIRE AND UTILITY COMPANIES

Let me also just ask a quick question. There is an issue with the 

Las Conchas fire. It was started by a downed power line, which 

brings up the issue of maintaining rights-of-way on Forest Service 

land that is really critical. I just wonder, is the Forest Service 

working with utilities to ensure that fires like the Las Conchas will 

never happen again, even without setting aside funding specifically 

for partnerships to do that, and working with these co-ops? And I 

think you are familiar with this issue. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, a few years ago, we increased our efforts 

to work with the utility companies, not only to ensure that their 

rights-of-way are cleared of hazardous materials, and reducing potential of a tree coming down on their lines, but also to work with 

them to be able to expand doing fuels treatment beyond the rightsof-way. Many of the companies recognize that even a fire that 

doesn’t take down a line, if they have to shut it down because of 

the smoke impact, whether it is a few days or a week, that it re-
36 

duces not only the effectiveness of the line, but it reduces their 

ability to collect revenues off of that line. 

So we are actually expanding our work beyond the rights-of-way, 

but actually to work with them in a partnership where they have 

their equipment in there to be able to address larger areas to reduce the fuels, to eliminate those tragic situations when we do get 

a power line that comes down and starts a fire. 

AIR TANKERS

Senator UDALL. Great. 

Chairman Murkowski mentioned the Coast Guard C–130Hs and 

what you are working on there. I also believe it is urgent that we 

try to get your airplanes up and running, especially now that we 

are going to be heading into the fire season again. So however we 

can help on that, we really want to get that moving. 

RESEARCH FUNDING QUESTIONS

I have a couple of other questions I will submit for the record. 

They involve cuts that involve research and things like that, which 

I am sure have been caused by the situation we have with your forest fire funding in your agency. We have a situation where you 

have to pull money out to fight fires, and so some of the other crucial areas are cut. 

So I will submit those for the record, and really appreciate the 

hearing today, Madam Chair. 

TIMBER HARVEST

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

And, Chief, thank you for being here with us this morning. 

Again, I acknowledge that you do have a tough job in balancing so 

much when it comes to management of our forests and the multiple 

use requirement. 

I know that we talk a lot about we have to resolve the fire borrowing, because that has kind of infiltrated decisions in so many 

other areas. But I think we also need to be honest that it doesn’t 

all come back to fire borrowing. We can’t blame it all. 

There are some policies that I think we have seen the administration take that have moved us away from that part of the multiple use which is managing our forests for timber harvest. I think 

that has been a policy decision that has shifted, whether it is in 

Montana or whether it is in Alaska or other parts of the country. 

So I would like us to get to that point where, again, we have 

agreement that our forests are a renewable resource, a renewable 

resource that needs to be managed, and carefully managed. The 

better we manage them, I think we know that works to reduce 

some of the hazardous fuels risks that we have and that we pay 

for. 

So as you move forward with implementation of your policies 

under these budgets, I think it is important that you hear where 

this subcommittee is coming from. And I think there have been 

several asks of members for you to work with them in a specific 

direction. I know we, certainly, have that. And I appreciate your 

willingness to do so. 
37 

But again, I do share a little bit of the concern and, perhaps, disappointment that we have not been able to do better by some of 

our timber-reliant communities across the country. 

So again, Chief, I appreciate your leadership in difficult areas, 

and I thank you for coming before the subcommittee this morning. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO TOM TIDWELL

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. The budget request calls for on overall reduction to Research and Devel- opment of about $4 million from the 2015 level. And, within this overall reduction 

is a proposed increase of $13 million in the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. As a supporter of FIA, I am glad the Service has acknowledged the importance of the program and requested enough funding to extend FIA to interior Alaska. It is my understanding that the request is upwards of $5 million more than necessary to keep funding robust and to expand the program. What activities would the additional $13 million fund? 

Answer. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Strategic Plan recently sub- mitted to Congress, identifies the $13 million to cover implementation for all of 

Alaska including interior Alaska. The increase also enables a 5-year measurement 

cycle in the eastern United States: 

—production of annual reports on renewable biomass supplies and carbon stocks 

at multiple spatial scales inclusive of ownership categories; 

—annualized forest products monitoring system with improved coverage of secondary manufacturing industries using wood; 

—enhanced remote sensing research and applications for immediate operational 

improvement of land cover and land use monitoring; 

—an improved National Woodland Owner Survey to determine the goals and objectives of private forest land owners, including Timber Management Organizations and Real Estate Investments Trusts; and 

—implementation of urban FIA in selected cities with State and local partnership 

support. 

Question. What will be the impacts of the non-FIA reduction to the Forest and 

Rangeland Research be to capacity and output? 

Answer. The decrease to non-FIA work will not prevent other research projects 

from moving forward, but it will slow progress on both new and existing projects. 

Research on hazardous reduction, a very important component of healthy forest 

management tht is focused on finding cost-effective ways to use biomass and promote healthy, sustainable forests that are more resilient to catastrophic fire, will be 

affected. The Forest Service will take steps to minimize the impact of the proposed 

funding reduction on our existing staff. If reductions to the workforce occur, it will 

be through not filling vacant positions. 

Question. What would the impact of the budget request be on the Forest Service’s 

focus on biomass uses and market development and expansion for non-merchantable 

timber products? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2016, we are requesting $32.3 million for biomass-related 

projects. Approximately $10 million would go towards grants to expand wood energy 

and wood products markets in order to support active forest management on National Forest System lands. In addition, we will continue to support the use of Statewide Wood Energy Teams to facilitate State efforts to make use of small-diameter 

wood generated from National Forest System and other forest lands with high wildfire risk. These funds would leverage additional matching support and bring more 

partners to the table in areas of the country with the most promising opportunities 

to expand markets for both wood energy and wood products. 

Question. According to the Forest Service’s cut and sold reports for fiscal year 

2014, stewardship contracts provided 30 percent of the timber volume sold in 2014, 

up from 27.5 percent last year, and up from less than 5 percent in 2004. In 2014 

this authority was made permanent. You told this committee that you would begin 

the Rulemaking process to add Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts 
38 

to the Small Business Administration Set-Aside Program as soon as stewardship 

contracting was reauthorized. 

What is the status of that rulemaking? 

Answer. The Forest Service has joined with the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) to prepare a joint Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM). The 

SBA published an ANPRM, in the Federal Register on March 25, 2015 (80 FR 

15697–99), to solicit public comments on two main items: 

—The possibility of including saw timber volume sold as part of a stewardship 

timber or stewardship services contract in the calculation of the timber sale 

share of small business; 

—How timber sale appraisals should be performed for small business set aside 

sales and associated costs and benefits to stakeholders (i.e. should appraisals 

be to the nearest SBA mill or remain to the nearest mill). 

The actual 5-year re-computation process will take place during October 2015 

through March 2016, with the new small business market share(s) effective October 

1, 2015. Under the current schedule the SBA rule should be completed before the 

5-year re-computation of the SBA Set-Aside Program. 

Question. The retrofitted Coast Guard C130s are scheduled to begin coming online 

late this year. It seems to me that this is an opportunity to see if the Forest Service 

can effectively manage and maintain a fleet of large air tankers. 

Do you think it is wise for the Forest Service to purchase an air tanker without 

first evaluating the cost and effectiveness of an in-house fleet versus contracted 

planes? 

Answer. The Forest Service has determined an in-house fleet as well as a contracted fleet makes the most financial sense. Owning a fleet of airtankers and contracting for aircrews, Integrated Logistics Support, and maintenance (field and 

depot level) is cost effective in the long run due to the ability to utilize the aircraft 

throughout the year for missions in support of both agency fire and resource objectives. This year-round operational model is not possible with the single purpose 

airtanker offered by private industry. Additionally, the majority of the overhead cost 

and additional personnel required to manage and maintain the aviation assets 

would be transferred to a contractor, providing the greatest flexibility to the agency. 

Question. Do you know how many support staff it will take to operate and maintain each C130H per year, and the annual cost of those services? 

Answer. Direct contract maintenance support of the aircraft during Initial Operating Capability (IOC) will require a crew of 7 and a possibility of a surge to 13 

should there be 2 aircraft available at the same time. This is estimated to cost 

$1.193 million in fiscal year 2015 and $1.73 million in fiscal year 2016. The flight 

crew contract consists of one program manager and five crew members: two pilots, 

one flight engineer and two loadmasters. The annual cost for this flight crew contract is $1.71 million in fiscal year 2015 and $2.27 million in fiscal year 2016. The 

U.S. Coast Guard will also provide operational, training, engineering, maintenance, 

and logistics support through an Interagency Agreement. USCG support is estimated to cost the Forest Service $3.9 million in fiscal year 2015 and $2.3 million 

in fiscal year 2016. The total cost for contracts and interagency support to operate 

and maintain the first two MAFFS equipped HC–130H aircraft is $6.8 million in 

fiscal year 2015 and $6.3 million in fiscal year 2016. 

Forest Service government employees will provide contract and operational oversight to one aircraft during fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. Two full-time employees will support the aircraft in fiscal year 2015 at a cost of $230,000. Another 

six employees will support the HC–130H program on a part-time basis; approximately one-third of each employee’s overall time. The cost for these employees in 

fiscal year 2015 is $197,000. The total cost in fiscal year 2015 for Federal employee 

support to the HC–130H program (and one operational aircraft) is $427,000. Government oversight will remain approximately the same with one aircraft or with 

multiple aircraft. 

Question. The administration has once again proposed doubling the amount of 

funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration programs, despite of the 

fact that the agency either met or exceeded its goals on only 2 of the 12 performance 

measures. I continue to be concerned that this program is becoming simply another 

budget line item to fund work that could otherwise be accomplished better through 

other budget line items. There are many opportunities outside of CFLR to expand 

management nationwide. 

What assurances can you give me that current and future projects selected for 

this program will specifically meet all of its criteria and are not simply work that 

could be accomplished outside the program umbrella? 
39 

Answer. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory Committee 

evaluates project proposals and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to make selections. The committee evaluates proposals based on 

how well the projects fulfill the purposes of the authorizing legislation. Specifically, 

whether projects: 

—encourage collaborative, science-based restoration; support ecological, economic, 

and social sustainability; 

—leverage local, national, and private resources; facilitate the reduction of wildfire management costs; and 

—demonstrate varied approaches to achieve ecological and watershed health objectives, and; use forest restoration byproducts to offset treatment costs. 

Question. How has the CFLR program reduced unit costs, either for acres treated 

or per unit of wood produced? 

Answer. One example of a project finding efficiency through collaboration and 

large landscape restoration is the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) in Arizona. 4FRI has issued 19 task orders to date, with an average per acre payment 

to the government of $41.15 per acre on 18 of those task orders. Task orders under 

a previous 10-year stewardship contract, White Mountain, cost the government an 

average of $500 per acre. Through conversations with partners and the focus on a 

large landscape in the phase one contract—in addition to the growth of markets in 

northern Arizona—the project has helped create opportunities to generate net gains 

and increase capacity for restoration work. Ultimately, these contracts will have a 

positive impact on watershed function and resilience and hazardous fuels reduction 

while creating economic activity in local communities. 

Question. How have CFLR projects reduced litigation or expedited project completion? 

Answer. Several projects have seen large landscape decisions approved without 

appeals or objections, and as a member of the Uncompahgre Partnership in Colorado stated, ‘‘there is no way a 17,000 acre decision would not have been appealed 

without collaboration.’’ By supporting project collaboration, the CFLRP program enables groups to address larger landscapes. The Deschutes Skyline project is a part 

of a 25,000 acre NEPA decision, bolstered by the success of a thinning project that 

was the first on the district to not be litigated in 13 years. Former litigants are now 

collaborators, acting as educators for the treatments proposed and carried out by the 

Forest Service. 

Question. Do you have data showing that CFLR project areas have reduced NEPA 

costs and increased the speed with which NEPA analysis is completed? 

Answer. We are not able to compare the speed and cost of NEPA between CFLR 

and non-CFLR projects because the average length of time required to reach a decision on a NEPA process varies greatly depending on many factors including: the extent of collaboration, size of analysis area, and natural resource issues specific to 

that project. Regardless of the program, we continue to look for opportunities to increase the scale of our analyses because it has the potential to save us more time 

by completing a single NEPA analysis as opposed to multiple analyses. 

Question. How many actual acres have been treated in CFLR project areas compared with non-CFLR acres since 2010? Do you know if those numbers represent 

increases or decreases based on the NFS unit’s prior performance? 

Answer. The tables below show: (1) key performance measure accomplishments 

for the CFLR projects from 2010–2014; and (2) key performance measure accomplishments for the entirety of the National Forest units that contain part of a CFLR 

landscape from 2010–2014. 

Comparing these numbers provides a sense for what portion of overall National 

Forest accomplishments came from activities on the CFLRP landscape. 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Four Forest Restoration Initiative: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 1,921 121 11,360 3,833 2,660 19,896 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 12,764 8,864 4,712 24,519 18,409 69,269 
40 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 382,357 220,977 275,483 728,557 92,747 1,700,121 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 48,546 5,587 9,032 8,082 25,178 96,425 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 51,126 28,816 28,798 57,229 37,214 203,183 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 5,202 2,546 2,302 3,892 530 14,472 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 0 35 9 19 62 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 15 0 2 0 34 50 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 59,745 99,751 10,167 48,570 86,043 304,276 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 69 47 51 128 92 387 

Burney Hat Creek Basins: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 962 313 332 1,607 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 1,472 1,040 2,113 4,625 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 27,402 33 18,754 46,189 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 1,329 624 2,640 4,592 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 1,677 496 738 2,911 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 974 540 980 2,494 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 13 30 16 59 

Colorado Front Range: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 0 1,047 1,100 1,564 1,199 4,910 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 1,091 5,370 2,181 5,758 5,414 19,814 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 5,514 1,128 459 260 0 7,361 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 0 0 0 0 969 969 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 3,224 8,291 5,506 9,625 6,530 33,176 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 100 1,050 625 429 477 2,681 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 4 5 0 7 16 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 0 0 0 4 4 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 0 1,407 6,615 1,414 4,163 13,599 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 8 3 6 3 3 23 
41 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Aador Calaveras Cornerstone: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 1,348 303 1,429 3,079 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 2,340 2,340 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 121 2,711 0 2,832 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 558 1,957 927 3,441 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 163 171 47 381 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 4 2 1 7 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 676 1,032 53 1,761 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 0 12 0 .4 12 

Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 0 0 240 394 2,125 2,759 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 0 983 1,486 1,356 2,371 6,196 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 8,817 29,458 18,515 2,274 4,825 63,888 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 0 66 30 0 4,071 4,167 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 18,828 5,440 7,654 11,570 10,453 53,945 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 0 973 1,422 1,140 2,085 5,620 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 0 3 2 0 5 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 1 16 9 7 13 45 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 0 975 2,524 5,057 10 8,566 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 3 8 8 2 24 45 

Dinkey Project: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 28 535 33 56 2 654 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 43 1,052 977 1,578 368 4,017 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 3,630 8,948 1,291 0 0 13,869 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 1,650 384 2,790 862 2,062 7,748 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 1,500 3,826 948 3,300 1,864 11,438 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 0 9 0 0 0 9 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 0 0 0 .................. 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 1 0 0 0 1 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 0 4,051 0 4,800 2,619 11,470 
42 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 0 8 7 2 1 19 

Grandfather Restoration Project: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 0 0 44 44 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 312 523 339 1,174 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 71 309 .................. 380 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 5,191 5,322 3,439 13,952 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 127 15 0 142 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 0 3 3 6 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 2,129 6 5,345 7,480 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 4 0 1 5 

Kootenai Valley Rhode Island: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 76 657 143 876 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 238 484 561 1,283 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 2,745 585 10,646 13,976 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 0 0 262 262 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 707 723 2,414 3,844 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 413 409 543 1,365 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 1 0 1 2 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 3 2 6 10 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 0 0 2,572 2,572 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 10 3 21 34 

Lakeview Stewardship: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 319 537 5,251 6,107 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 6,107 3,614 11,879 21,600 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 14 14 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 14,888 8,546 19,248 42,682 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 4,608 0 14,784 19,392 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 1,036 516 704 2,256 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 16 16 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 141 9 10 160 
43 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 2,654 4,159 19,646 26,459 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 0 2 15 17 

Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration 

and Hazardous Fuels Reduction: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 0 148 269 417 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 0 614 127 741 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 187 3 .................. 190 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 261 0 .................. 261 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 51,181 85,440 86,914 223,535 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 150 0 439 589 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 7 0 .................. 7 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 3 0 0 3 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 86,851 120,276 99,954 307,081 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 3 10 16 29 

Longleaf Pine in Florida: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 3,649 1,359 2,678 2,338 1,693 11,717 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 1,500 554 2,115 3,119 4,407 11,695 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 0 0 105 1 0 105 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 8,830 15,578 40,134 3,907 4,320 72,769 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 4,285 18,985 12,628 25,401 37,817 99,116 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 0 0 80 0 0 80 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 16 16 16 .................. 48 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 1,300 42,592 12,114 3,015 0 59,021 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 0 13 24 5 29 71 

Missouri Pine Oak: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 0 252 787 1,039 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 5,920 657 6,072 12,649 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 6,307 6,307 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 3,772 9,621 11,793 25,186 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 13,570 0 8,323 21,893 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 0 153 354 508 
44 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 20,174 1,760 10,850 32,784 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 2 13 11 25 

Northeast Washington Forest Vision: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 79 0 0 79 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 739 2,157 2,221 5,117 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 1,268 672 298 2,238 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 6,745 4,709 5,181 16,635 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 534 0 0 534 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 9 0 12 21 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 1,679 0 5,181 6,860 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 19 17 11 46 

Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 39 251 268 558 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 466 2,177 1,691 4,334 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 3,336 10,022 9,758 23,116 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 14,820 15,033 3,296 33,149 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 2,089 3,328 1,503 6,920 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 15 21 37 73 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 34,058 56,887 48,313 139,257 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 3 18 3 23 

Selway-Middle Fork: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 148 0 0 0 18 166 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 19 616 616 498 18 1,767 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 0 938 1,217 15 860 3,030 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 1,755 16,700 13,389 23,917 665 56,426 
45 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 317 3,404 1,094 0 25 4,840 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 2,597 3,404 4,110 3,595 1,116 14,821 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 8 27 24 6 66 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 4 32 19 9 63 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 0 0 13,166 1,860 750 15,776 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf)* .......... 0 8 5 0 .1 7 20 

Shortleaf Bluestem Community: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 140 1,085 665 1,890 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 1,330 2,332 1,093 4,755 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 5,391 7,024 6,742 19,157 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 16,469 28,561 12,498 57,528 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 33,120 33,041 38,709 104,870 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 23 0 21 44 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 19 0 1 20 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 57,937 103,023 75,421 236,381 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 34 41 47 121 

Southern Blues Restoration Coalition: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 1,044 10,017 5,039 16,100 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 13,013 6,509 13,031 32,553 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 3,544 22,251 20,483 46,278 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 8,247 8,268 5,788 22,302 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 0 0 72 72 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 14 0 11 25 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 9,832 4,932 923 15,687 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... .................. .................. 24 48 60 132 

Southwest Crown: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 1,755 1,916 2,650 2,879 1,615 10,815 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 0 76 259 621 1,857 2,813 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 131,870 6,441 728 95 5,315 144,449 
46 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 1,089 2,352 641 2,047 1,207 7,336 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 4,141 1,877 1,917 1,847 3,331 13,113 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 0 2,960 5,447 1,596 242 10,245 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 11 0 25 23 58 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 14 52 7 28 102 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 0 11,201 7,598 7,054 2,270 28,123 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 23 13 0 .8 1 16 53 

Southwest Jemez Mountains on the 

Santa Fe National Forest: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 890 649 861 720 106 3,226 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 3,000 0 0 887 10,464 14,351 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 0 326 0 2,906 0 3,232 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 1,623 3,623 2,668 5,420 6,242 19,576 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 0 4 21 87 60 171 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 11 0 3 0 14 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 12 2 3 0 0 17 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 1,933 640 3,546 4,806 4,000 14,925 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 0 .8 0 0 0 .6 2 3 

Tapash: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 600 371 0 1,197 631 2,799 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 0 0 1,104 4 3,040 4,148 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 5,100 0 3,869 794 2,893 12,656 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 0 0 1,318 679 1,969 3,966 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 0 0 0 0 4 4 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 1 0 4 10 14 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 0 2,907 746 1,657 12,490 17,800 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 1 15 7 13 10 46 

Uncompahgre Plateau: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... 401 559 295 0 147 1,402 
47 

TABLE 1: CFLRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY PROJECT AREA—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) 261 2,026 1,205 0 765 4,257 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. 1,782 4,891 771 339 3,652 11,435 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... 556 2,871 723 678 336 5,164 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... 610 448 222 392 745 2,418 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... 30 0 30 36 13 109 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ 0 1 2 15 0 18 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ 2,943 3,739 8,202 7,438 2,000 24,322 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ......... 3 6 3 5 3 20 

Weiser Little Salmon Headwaters: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 1,053 1,232 737 3,022 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 2,409 948 2,697 6,054 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 8,559 10,640 35,360 54,559 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 6,675 16,531 16,042 39,248 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 7,480 3,706 2,529 13,714 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 2,169 1,778 2,365 6,312 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 33 37 30 100 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 37 24 23 84 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 22,872 18,146 15,534 56,552 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf)* .......... .................. .................. 13 12 23 48 

Zuni Mountains: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) .................. .................. 0 3,279 3,763 7,042 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) .. .................. .................. 0 0 4,463 4,463 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ................................. .................. .................. 0 0 .................. 0 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within 

the Wildland Urban Interface 

(acres) ......................................... .................. .................. 1,700 3,407 4,144 9,251 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) ...................... .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ....... .................. .................. 0 0 4 4 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................ .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ............................ .................. .................. 120 1,800 744 2,664 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf)* .......... .................. .................. 4 6 6 16 

1 Official Timber Volume Sold by National Forest comes from official PTSAR (Periodic Timber Sale Attainment Reports) which provides volume in both hundred cubic feet (ccf)—converted here to million board feet (mmbf). 
48 

TOTAL CFLRP 5 YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

Forest Vegetation Established (acres) ........................................................................................................... 67,957 

Forest Vegetation Improved (acres) ............................................................................................................... 214,406 

Green tons of biomass made available for bioenergy (green tons) ............................................................. 2,126,922 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................................... 509,256 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments within the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) .................................................. 945,097

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Treatments (acres) .................................................................................. 73,605 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ..................................................................................................................... 530 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ............................................................................................. 703 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or Enhanced (acres) ......................................................................................... 1,335,909 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1,256 

1 Official Timber Volume Sold by National Forest comes from official PTSAR (Periodic Timber Sale Attainment Reports) which provides vol- ume in both hundred cubic feet (ccf)—converted here to million board feet (mmbf). 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, 

Kaibab, and Tonto National 

Forests—Four Forest Restoration 

Initiative: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 2,820 1,817 11,750 4,691 3,562 24,640 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 13,916 11,587 6,751 25,490 20,566 78,310 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 404,374 375,049 408,201 906,136 204,864 2,298,625 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 62,255 53,438 32,432 22,587 63,986 234,698 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 53,336 53,487 36,857 59,828 61,964 265,471 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 8,165 6,573 6,705 8,584 8,871 38,897 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 19 1 42 0 0 61 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 43 69 72 124 66 374 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 107,982 194,945 59,199 194,147 115,607 671,879 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 85 76 70 154 117 502 

Arapaho-Roosevelt and Pike San 

Isabel National 

Forests—Colorado Front Range: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 4,048 3,516 2,925 3,636 2,992 17,118 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 2,996 8,040 5,584 7,145 6,808 30,573 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 62,756 33,409 22,345 23,943 20,780 163,233 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 5,279 4,446 6,521 2,366 3,220 21,833 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 21,009 17,840 14,881 16,761 14,091 84,582 
49 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 4,914 8,148 7,466 8,113 12,003 40,644 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 12 51 29 0 0 91 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 13 20 28 24 41 125 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 4,705 25,744 32,474 37,519 36,564 137,006 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 28 23 26 20 29 127 

Cibola National Forest—Zuni Mountain: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 611 373 0 0 0 984 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 2,316 834 602 5,616 8,616 17,984 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 36,460 43,822 32,346 35,300 21,682 169,610 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 11,065 6,380 3,258 1,658 1,506 23,867 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 8,107 3,641 2,582 5,887 9,101 29,318 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 1,016 925 559 504 126 3,129 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 0 2 1 1 1 5 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 21,878 20,075 17,520 18,924 28,719 107,116 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 7 12 12 13 11 56 

Clearwater National Forest (Now 

part of the Nez Perce Clearwater 

National Forest)—Selway-Middle 

Fork: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 4,310 3,454 2,730 693 0 11,187 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 4,056 2,844 2,177 2,083 0 11,160 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 24,128 28,398 27,283 19,737 0 99,546 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 7,134 12,283 8,771 19,970 0 48,158 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 2,718 1,722 1,671 811 0 6,922 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 19,041 1,143 4,810 2,095 0 27,090 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 28 35 24 0 0 87 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 88 68 42 0 0 198 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 7,000 12,825 11,141 0 0 30,966 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 23 36 21 32 0 113 
50 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Colville National Forest—Northeast 

Washington Vision 2020: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 770 585 609 880 480 3,324 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 4,944 481 1,741 4,423 3,218 14,807 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 51,763 37,275 46,407 27,504 23,529 186,479 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 9,389 1,107 2,151 1,064 1,933 15,644 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 12,240 6,797 15,085 5,683 7,639 47,444 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 2,093 1,995 2,281 2,011 2,246 10,626 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 1 6 3 0 0 11 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 15 25 27 17 34 118 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 9,654 6,788 6,606 39,568 13,990 76,606 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 48 41 37 47 48 221 

Deschutes National 

Forest—Deschutes Collaborative 

Forest Project: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 5,992 6,212 4,824 3,306 5,595 25,928 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 34,033 17,324 10,200 6,320 7,352 75,229 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 79,055 74,130 71,286 57,050 36,878 318,399 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 57,479 17,611 17,701 16,451 23,587 132,829 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 32,927 28,166 32,808 23,368 22,869 140,138 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 5,417 3,793 6,095 6,329 6,833 28,466 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 7 1 40 0 0 48 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 5 21 18 17 20 80 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 1,563 33,208 15,830 23,641 30,784 105,026 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 54 52 61 61 57 283 

Eldorado and Stanislaus National 

Forests—Amador Calaveras Cornerstone: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 380 330 471 199 196 1,576 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 7,377 6,244 5,318 1,645 2,493 23,077 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 84,027 90,252 71,239 22,094 44,018 311,630 
51 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 11,385 11,078 13,287 9,144 9,059 53,953 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 8,989 6,832 2,640 3,444 5,019 26,924 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 752 757 816 725 914 3,964 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 1 0 1 0 0 ........................

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 23 17 36 39 38 154 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 2,344 25,476 21,960 11,422 14,071 75,272 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 52 42 58 33 96 281 

Flathead, Helena, and Lolo National 

Forests—Southwest Crown of the 

Continent: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 14,689 18,852 16,947 7,034 9,428 66,950 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 5,334 2,673 1,297 3,482 2,344 15,130 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 127,024 115,768 100,166 87,458 115,952 546,368 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 13,347 15,252 8,761 18,668 7,461 63,488 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 15,447 14,195 9,463 8,026 16,445 63,576 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 13,770 16,505 10,188 11,877 9,868 62,209 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 84 45 63 0 0 192 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 91 47 82 52 111 384 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 16,504 36,678 57,563 47,529 89,467 247,740 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 77 63 43 25 71 278 

Fremont-Winema National 

Forest—Lakeview Stewardship: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 947 1,238 1,536 1,511 6,233 11,465 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 18,966 7,785 18,850 10,083 23,743 79,428 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 119,078 62,829 45,046 51,636 35,806 314,394 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 43,398 22,700 49,415 17,674 37,709 170,897 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 8,409 6,535 10,890 34,007 21,977 81,818 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 2,697 1,792 2,555 2,247 2,759 12,051 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 
52 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 152 88 144 21 28 434 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 14,499 21,017 32,969 30,877 32,687 132,048 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 58 42 68 36 60 264 

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 

National Forest—Uncompahgre 

Plateau: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 707 669 2,500 355 1,873 6,104 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 316 2,270 1,733 215 789 5,324 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 18,070 18,342 16,887 17,389 15,868 86,556 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 1,877 6,184 2,870 3,839 6,287 21,057 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 2,013 4,444 1,397 1,707 532 10,093 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 5,225 6,686 1,759 1,304 2,249 17,223 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 30 149 156 0 0 335 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 9 35 25 28 27 124 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 5,528 36,647 45,772 15,228 33,223 136,398 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 10 13 25 23 30 101 

Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests—Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 897 1,342 1,461 1,499 1,141 6,340 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 9,846 4,848 3,566 3,300 4,327 25,887 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 69,904 66,441 70,776 66,898 62,407 336,425 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 7,620 6,636 4,414 3,892 2,473 25,035 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 3,479 3,609 4,157 3,983 4,132 19,359 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 3,075 3,600 3,038 2,330 3,251 15,293 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 26 14 9 0 0 49 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 22 13 10 6 38 88 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 10,888 30,038 21,494 9,766 30,073 102,259 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 33 24 45 40 44 186 

Lassen National Forest—Burney Hat 

Creek Basins: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 1,512 703 1,520 1,160 924 5,819 
53 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 8,961 7,424 8,341 4,439 5,002 34,167 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 124,145 158,484 129,096 70,051 86,847 568,623 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 18,358 11,500 11,594 7,210 9,809 58,469 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 2,683 5,033 2,824 2,884 1,783 15,206 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 192 493 90 60 50 886 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 7 9 1 0 0 17 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 25 32 14 9 19 98 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 11,982 6,286 6,134 4,012 5,151 33,565 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 34 56 40 54 31 215 

Malheur National Forest—Southern 

Blues Restoration Coalition: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 4,767 4,588 4,219 6,135 4,251 23,959 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 15,097 3,977 4,979 13,628 7,416 45,097 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 22,361 19,238 32,587 29,744 33,231 137,161 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 26,298 7,714 12,205 32,471 32,606 111,293 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 17,246 18,247 13,894 12,975 8,940 71,302 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 410 203 43 322 364 1,341 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 29 3 0 0 0 32 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 23 29 33 16 32 133 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 33,173 31,314 27,176 29,220 31,776 152,659 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 39 29 34 55 70 227 

Mark Twain National 

Forest—Missouri Pine Oak: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 5,077 5,838 6,828 6,483 6,343 30,569 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 3,635 4,004 8,773 2,361 6,963 25,736 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 27,345 22,541 16,592 12,844 39,276 118,597 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 52,680 35,661 26,643 26,731 31,675 173,391 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 13,631 10,272 32,534 7,848 37,920 102,205 
54 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 4,936 3,930 871 2,104 2,399 14,241 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 28 0 35 0 0 63 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 1 24 85 28 74 211 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 29,307 70,912 68,468 52,826 64,810 286,322 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 47 46 38 50 54 235 

National Forests in 

Florida—Accelerating Longlead 

Pine: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 10,465 4,016 5,044 5,305 3,404 28,234 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 2,553 1,202 2,381 3,852 5,292 15,280 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 1,577 2,213 1,203 1,323 956 7,271 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 75,960 77,558 58,206 46,620 49,010 307,354 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 171,762 82,542 70,996 126,105 151,932 603,337 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 341 394 496 504 427 2,162 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 39 30 47 0 0 116 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 33 27 33 860 56 1,009 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 142,274 172,003 302,847 218,666 181,883 1,017,673 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 22 32 42 32 55 183 

National Forests in 

Mississippi—Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Reduction: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 977 819 1,445 2,120 954 6,315 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 3,006 1,688 1,643 1,906 773 9,016 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 7,824 1,162 4,002 773 481 14,242 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 22,451 16,330 15,307 4,045 4,277 62,410 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 222,365 108,544 158,739 193,547 198,300 881,495 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 3,536 3,804 2,710 32 495 10,576 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 140 27 116 0 0 283 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 6 40 40 52 38 176 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 187,446 132,324 191,577 324,785 241,605 1,077,737 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 75 64 72 58 77 346 
55 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

National Forests in North 

Carolina—Grandfather Restoration Project: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 463 23,708 6,894 1,137 796 32,997 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 3,496 3,632 5,193 4,011 3,897 20,228 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 8,874 8,289 6,711 8,181 8,382 40,437 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 18,045 17,711 3,043 3,046 9,592 51,438 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 29,561 20,110 36,234 29,354 25,265 140,524 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 326 712 1,190 1,355 799 4,382 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 16 1 2 0 0 19 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 55 55 61 39 29 239 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 3,446 35,764 11,845 9,518 37,120 97,691 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 17 27 22 16 18 100 

Nez Perce National 

Forest—Selway-Middle Fork: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 2,691 3,280 2,323 2,831 3,023 14,148 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 1,263 1,088 1,129 879 2,769 7,128 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 20,872 23,841 23,593 15,680 55,745 139,732 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 2,237 13,355 13,826 22,424 10,112 61,954 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 2,297 5,048 4,576 180 7,683 19,784 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 5,690 6,098 8,623 7,673 6,946 35,030 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 79 35 44 0 0 159 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 53 73 53 95 78 352 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 7,000 16,035 20,740 15,202 10,911 69,888 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 15 16 18 12 56 117 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest—Tapash: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 2,416 4,325 4,912 3,960 7,775 23,388 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 5,709 3,750 3,657 4,004 2,630 19,750 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 51,082 54,916 47,365 49,053 38,263 240,678 
56 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 8,177 2,130 3,782 3,943 3,916 21,947 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 27,252 22,328 19,545 43,697 24,836 137,657 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 10,559 10,046 5,786 5,892 8,001 40,285 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 11 20 4 0 0 35 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 8 5 110 23 34 179 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 18,865 27,468 15,660 2,804 49,395 114,192 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 56 53 42 34 37 221 

Ouachita National Forest—Shortleaf 

Bluestem Community: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 10,601 8,119 4,850 7,022 4,175 34,766 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 9,332 7,216 7,673 5,449 9,267 38,937 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 8,369 13,217 15,694 13,415 13,838 64,532 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 74,721 63,193 50,449 55,274 24,683 268,320 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 75,592 46,371 69,978 70,081 89,053 351,075 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 430 290 374 400 536 2,030 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 0 0 56 0 0 56 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 30 165 64 42 40 341 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 122,827 145,791 132,701 210,270 152,321 763,910 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 95 100 89 77 85 446 

Ozark St Francis National 

Forest—Ozark Highlands: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 3,238 2,304 1,417 1,639 1,832 10,430 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 4,481 5,936 11,460 5,599 5,440 32,916 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 5,364 3,165 2,574 2,844 3,399 17,346 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 61,528 42,579 22,707 15,690 28,653 171,157 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 31,010 17,520 44,031 42,604 26,050 161,214 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 3,235 3,446 3,090 3,971 4,730 18,473 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 1 2 52 0 0 55 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 64 62 87 71 88 371 
57 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 82,655 82,557 133,569 120,757 156,508 576,046 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 58 58 58 53 66 294 

Payette National 

Forest—Weiser-Little Salmon 

Headwaters: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 1,174 1,652 1,841 1,232 737 6,636 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 5,387 1,978 2,409 948 2,697 13,419 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 46,608 33,338 29,033 24,127 49,572 182,677 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 12,441 1,585 6,935 28,988 16,042 65,991 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 14,495 13,365 8,449 3,711 4,227 44,245 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 3,157 2,798 2,714 2,709 3,410 14,788 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 53 20 33 0 0 106 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 38 14 48 49 39 189 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 10,713 5,582 24,116 28,279 16,996 85,686 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 28 27 19 15 27 115 

Santa Fe National 

Forest—Southwest Jemez Mountains: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 109 552 157 2,359 795 3,972 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 1,260 1,061 1,745 1,619 1,098 6,783 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 64,765 59,548 55,496 54,161 50,040 284,010 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 22,723 3,469 1,761 16,279 3,175 47,407 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 8,540 7,760 4,379 6,777 10,166 37,622 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 436 298 306 171 337 1,548 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 0 11 0 0 0 11 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 20 19 18 12 19 87 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 7,869 6,355 11,431 6,090 7,290 39,035 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 15 14 13 12 12 67 

Sierra National Forest—Dinkey 

Project: 

Forest Vegetation Established 

(acres) ..................................... 267 836 138 229 170 1,640 

Forest Vegetation Improved 

(acres) ..................................... 2,583 3,075 2,093 2,789 1,478 12,018 
58 

TABLE 2: TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY ACTIVITIES FOR NATIONAL FORESTS WITH CFLRP PROJECT 

AREAS—Continued 

[Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Total 

Accomplishments 

Forests With 

CFLR Projects 

Green tons of biomass made 

available for bioenergy (green 

tons) ........................................ 16,073 21,914 11,842 11,445 8,247 69,521 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Outside the Wildland Urban Interface (acres) ............................. 5,135 1,703 3,645 3,201 5,265 18,949 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within the Wildland Urban 

Interface (acres) ...................... 4,514 4,951 2,111 5,442 2,293 19,311 

Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed 

Treatments (acres) .................. 109 75 54 45 74 357 

Roads decommissioned (miles) ... 0 1 0 0 0 1 

Stream Habitat Restored or Enhanced (miles) ........................ 5 19 16 15 11 66 

Terrestrial Habitat Restored or 

Enhanced (acres) .................... 3,191 10,087 6,822 7,719 5,762 33,581 

Timber Volume Sold (mmbf) 1 ..... 15 22 23 20 25 106 

1 Official Timber Volume Sold by National Forest comes from official PTSAR (Periodic Timber Sale Attainment Reports) which provides volume in both hundred cubic feet (ccf)—converted here to million board feet (mmbf). 

Question. How much in non-CFLR FS funds are used to meet matching requirements under CFLR? Please provide a breakdown by CFLR project. 

Answer. The table below provides a list of CFLRP expenditures used to meet the 

matching requirement under CFLRP projects. 

CFLRP EXPENDITURES AND FOREST SERVICE MATCHING FUNDS

(Forest Service matching funds are italicized) 

The CFLR Fund (expenditures shown below) is to be used to pay up to 50 percent 

of the cost of carrying out and monitoring ecological restoration treatments on National Forest System land. The remainder of project implementation and monitoring 

costs are provided by Forest Service and partner match funding. Forest Service 

matching funds listed below include appropriated, permanent, and trust funds, as 

well as restoration treatments funded through timber value within a stewardship 

contract. It also includes unobligated balances that may be available in a given year 

to support the Chief’s priorities and Strategic Plan. Forest Service match includes 

investments that would go to these landscapes even without the CFLR program, to 

support these high priority restoration efforts. Initial investments supported the 

projects as partner match and revenue from woody byproducts increase over time 

with implementation. 

Project Name 

Fiscal Year 2010 CFLRP & FS Match Fiscal Year 2011 CFLRP & FS Match Fiscal Year 2012 CFLRP & FS Match Fiscal Year 2013 CFLRP & FS Match Fiscal Year 2014 CFLRP & FS Match 

Four Forest Restoration Initiative .................................. $985,943 $1,377,483 $2,010,741 $3,890,185 $3,718,311 

25,602,100 6,755,235 14,395,465 17,483,952 17,896,968 

Accelerating Longleaf Pine ............................................ 1,000,313 1,164,031 1,408,354 979,898 984,542 

1,579,787 1,464,896 1,599,014 1,687,376 2,491,322 

Amador-Calaveras Cornerstone ..................................... 0 0 658,373 620,770 930,857 

0 0 716,275 618,295 5,982,159 

Burney-Hat Creek Basins .............................................. 0 0 512,691 200,864 934,763 

0 0 0 777,316 563,347 

Colorado Front Range .................................................... 930,458 3,578,889 2,945,211 2,494,072 1,937,324 

1,100,763 1,436,804 1,968,824 2,902,453 4,412,522 

Deschutes Collaborative Forest ..................................... 498,402 660,492 621,311 443,468 1,100,337 

2,506,679 627,886 1,251,485 1,297,611 1,863,306 
59 

Project Name 

Fiscal Year 

2010 

CFLRP & FS 

Match 

Fiscal Year 

2011 

CFLRP & FS 

Match 

Fiscal Year 

2012 

CFLRP & FS 

Match 

Fiscal Year 

2013 

CFLRP & FS 

Match 

Fiscal Year 

2014 

CFLRP & FS 

Match 

Dinkey Landscape Restoration ...................................... 1,107,000 1,170,965 1,408,791 900,819 1,095,987 

305,919 688,878 820,427 1,631,206 1,566,590 

Grandfather Restoration ................................................ 0 0 322,819 478,763 409,100 

0 0 185,878 2,224,737 320,009 

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative ............................... 0 0 174,911 176,479 597,381 

0 0 352,801 630,107 1,511,209 

Lakeview Stewardship ................................................... 0 0 2,088,646 2,037,204 2,707,036 

0 0 3,347,513 5,321,117 4,075,996 

Longleaf Pine 1 ............................................................... .................. .................. .................. 1,909,931 1,954,859 

0 0 4,193,690 1,646,194 3,333,200 

Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration .................... 0 0 534,966 531,335 786,272 

0 0 295,308 1,434,590 1,066,617 

Northeast Washington 1 Forest Vision 2020 .................. 0 0 0 1,416,636 1,524,908 

0 0 1,523,557 1,783,510 1,503,150 

Ozark Highlands 1 Ecosystem Restoration .................... 0 0 0 1,371,740 1,349,323 

0 0 425,389 1,822,965 2,384,261 

Selway-Middle Fork ........................................................ 998,125 3,030,467 2,755,991 2,305,822 2,270,924 

352,145 1,595,149 1,579,612 2,708,049 2,653,263 

Shortleaf-Bluestem ........................................................ 0 0 316,319 1,739,957 1,382,163 

0 0 642,974 2,795,554 2,718,882 

Southern Blues Restoration Coalition ........................... 0 0 1,935,470 1,762,834 1,865,750 

0 0 1,595,247 4,205,990 3,069,395 

Southwest Jemez Mountains .......................................... 341,414 976,477 1,256,857 1,997,544 1,948,378 

1,143,000 1,417,600 2,551,544 2,576,738 2,643,191 

Southwest Crown of the Continent ............................... 1,006,295 3,125,410 3,215,025 2,647,057 2,277,790 

1,833,459 2,720,673 2,376,974 3,653,125 2,486,289 

Tapash ........................................................................... 1,346,196 803,182 881,714 1,454,042 1,710,488 

1,264,305 324,716 860,034 204,258 865,364 

Uncompahgre Plateau ................................................... 438,178 863,892 733,237 504,996 741,551 

224,500 1,440,198 998,432 1,461,162 1,970,401 

Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters .................................. 0 0 2,170,446 2,728,164 2,217,072 

0 0 4,058,114 4,505,261 10,442,104 

Zuni Mountain ............................................................... 0 0 329,311 559,502 358,020 

0 0 402,113 770,191 8,665,053 

Total 1 ............................................................... 7,546,431 16,751,288 26,281,184 33,152,082 32,865,811 

FS Total ............................................................ 35,912,657 18,472,035 47,099,673 64,141,776 85,743,775 

1 Note: 10 projects were added to the CFLRP program in fiscal year 2012 and three more were added in fiscal year 2013. CFLN totals include only expenditures; they do not capture prior year CFLN funds which remain available. CFLN funds provide up to 50 percent of the 

project funding, supplemented by the matching funds, over the 10-year project lifetimes. 

Question. In an answer to a question for the record from Energy and Natural Resources hearing in July of last year you stated that the Forest Service has identified 

approximately 11.3 million acres for highest priority treatment. You went on to say 

that these acres are at a high or very high risk and that treating these acres would 

greatly reduce the negative consequences of potential wildfires. 

Where are these acres located? 

Answer. The 11.3 million acres is an estimate based on a national scale analysis 

of fire potential that is regularly updated (annually or biennially) to incorporate 

landscape changes. These estimates reflect acres that are at high and very high risk 

of wildfire, are near human development or in high value municipal watersheds, not 

in wilderness or roadless areas, and in fire regime groups I, II, or III. The numbers 
60 

are constantly changing, as wildfires, land management, and development occur. 

Due to this, the analysis only readily generates data at the Regional level. 

Forest Service Region Priority Acres 

1 Northern Region .................................................................................... 1,443,000 

2 Rocky Mountain Region ........................................................................ 679,000 

3 Southwestern Region ............................................................................ 1,704,000 

4 Intermountain Region ........................................................................... 764,000 

5 Pacific Southwest Region ..................................................................... 3,698,000 

6 Pacific Northwest Region ...................................................................... 1,884,000 

8 Southern Region .................................................................................... 999,000 

9 Eastern Region ...................................................................................... 137,000 

Total Acres ....................................................................................... 11,308,000 

Question. How many of these acres do you plan to treat in fiscal year 2015, and 

how many for fiscal year 2016 under this proposed budget? 

Answer. The Forest Service expects to treat fuels on 2.145 million acres in 2015 

and also in 2016. Much of this work will take place in the areas as identified above. 

Fuels work will also take place in areas that are high priority for integrated restoration objectives, or in areas where maintenance work is needed to protect previous 

landscape management investments (for example, maintenance burning in the 

Southeast). In addition, some areas require more than one treatment to effectively 

reduce risk or achieve restoration objectives. 

Question. How are you tracking the Forest Service’s progress on treating these 

11.3 million acres? Is there a performance measure in this budget proposal? 

Answer. Treated acres are tracked within an enterprise system, including their 

mapped locations. We are piloting a new performance measure for our draft Strategic Plan that better tracks risk reduced on National Forest System lands. 

Alaska doesn’t compete well for hazardous fuels funds, but that doesn’t mean our 

need isn’t significant. I am particularly concerned about this in the wake of the 

Funny River Fire. As you know, roughly 243 square miles burned in the fire, fueled 

largely by spruce bark beetle kills. We were fortunate that fuels breaks worked and 

helped keep the fire from being even more destructive. According to your statistics, 

Alaska received just $785,000 in fiscal year 2014 and is on track to receive about 

the same amount for fiscal year 2015. 

Question. Is this sufficient to meet the need in Alaska? 

Answer. Alaska received an additional $200,000 in fiscal year 2015 for the Chugach National Forest’s All Hands work. We recognize the importance and impact of 

the Fuels Program in Alaska. Due to constrained budgets, we must prioritize areas 

with more frequent fires and greater population densities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

Question. How important is the Disaster Cap Adjustment proposal to the administration’s overall vision for reducing the threat of wildfires? 

Answer. The Disaster Cap Adjustment proposal is very important to the administration’s proposal for a new wildfire funding mechanism. The proposal would allow 

us to continue to manage most wildland fires as we currently do, but would treat 

those fires that are most destructive and most costly outside of our discretionary 

budget. Approximately 1 percent of fires result in about 30 percent of suppression 

costs, and this new wildfire funding mechanism would allow those fires to be considered natural disasters. The cost of fire management has grown from 13 percent of 

the agency’s budget in the 1990s to over 50 percent in 2014. With constrained budgets, this has meant other programs have suffered diminished budgets. 

There is no set of solutions that will definitively result in decreasing wildfire management costs because of factors outside of our control, such as expansion of the 

wildland urban interface, and climate change. Taking these most expensive fires out 

of our constrained, discretionary budget by changing the mechanism to fund wildfire 

suppression will alleviate the need to continue cutting budgets to non-fire programs 

and allow us to invest further in the restoration and active management programs 

that will improve the health and resilience of forests and grasslands, including making them more resistant to wildland fire. 

I cannot overstate how much the Disaster Cap Adjustment proposal for fire would 

alleviate the problems created by fire transfer. It would eliminate the need to transfer funds from hazardous fuels reduction efforts, and other important natural re-
61 

source management programs to cover firefighting costs. When funding is transferred from other programs to support fire suppression operations, these programs 

are unable to accomplish priority work and achieve the overall mission of the agency. This priority work often was intended to mitigate wildland fire hazards in future 

years. The ability of programs to achieve established targets is impacted and 

projects are often put on hold or cancelled. Programs that help prevent damaging 

fires in the future, like Hazardous Fuels reduction, Integrated Resource Restoration, 

and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program are critically important to maintain forest and rangeland health and reduce the threat of wildfires. 

Question. What are the management impacts that the Forest Service has experienced because of fire borrowing in previous years? 

Answer. In years when the base appropriation for suppression is insufficient to 

cover the cost of fighting wildland fire, the agency has the authority to transfer 

funds from non-fire activities to suppression. These non-fire activities are often 

those that improve the health and resilience of our forested landscapes and thus 

mitigate the potential for fire in future years. These fire transfers, while they are 

generally reimbursed in subsequent appropriations, are highly disruptive to agency 

operations and hinder the Forest Service’s capacity to effectively maintain and restore the Nation’s forests and grasslands. The agency work must come to a halt in 

order to transfer funds and, although we may be able to do the work the following 

year with the reimbursed funds, there are costs related to the delay, the window 

for conducting that work may pass and other projects may become a priority, and 

we fall further behind as we can never recapture the lost season of work. 

Question. Given that the Forest Service will always fight forest fires, what will 

happen to the rest of the Forest Service budget if Congress fails to approve the disaster cap and fails to end sequestration? 

Answer. The increasing cost of fighting wildland fire has a negative and lasting 

impact on the Forest Service’s non-fire, mission-critical activities. We anticipate that 

without the budget cap adjustment, and with continued sequestration, we could face 

significantly negative funding impacts to other Forest Service mission focus areas 

thereby reducing our ability to achieve programmatic objectives because of the need 

to transfer funds from hazardous fuels reduction and other important natural resource management programs to cover firefighting costs. 

Question. Are the Forest Service’s attorneys working with the Valles Caldera 

Trust to ensure that long-term agreements and contracts are not jeopardized by the 

management transfer to the National Park Service? 

Answer. The Forest Service is working closely with the National Park Service and 

the Valles Caldera Trust to ensure that the transfer of long-term agreements and 

contracts are not jeopardized by the management transfer to the National Park 

Service. 

Question. How will the Forest Service continue to manage the Southwest Jemez 

Mountains Landscape Restoration Project, now that a portion of the original project 

area and scope are not National Forest System lands? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2015, the Forest Service is transferring funds to the National Park Service for restoration activities on the Valles Caldera National Preserve lands under the existing contract. The Santa Fe National Forest is committed 

to continuing to collaborate with the National Park Service to achieve the Southwest 

Jemez Mountains restoration goals. 

Question. The Forest Service has used the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute (SWERI) to assist in collecting data, researching solutions to problems, consulting on and assessing planned decisions, and to disseminate their findings. Despite the benefits to the Forest Service, funding for the Institute has stagnated over 

the last few years at $1.5 million. Is this level of funding adequate for SWERI’s 

work? 

Answer. The current funding amount is consistent with the levels set by Congress 

when the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act (which authorized 

funding to these Institutes) was passed. The amounts provided to each Institute are 

meant to align with their capacity and focus areas. They are valuable partners and 

play a critical role in the transfer of current scientific information regarding management of fire-adapted ecosystems in the interior West. The Forest Service has also 

provided additional funding to the Institutes through other partnerships and competitive processes. The Forest Service meets regularly with representatives from 

each Institute to discuss funding, upcoming work plans, and outyear planning. Our 

Southwest Region develops annual work plans for each Institute in consultation 

with the Department of the Interior and State Foresters. 

Question. Within SWERI, both the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration 

Institute and the Colorado program receive substantially less each year than Arizona, despite the fact that the three programs submit a shared list of projects to 
62 

the Forest Service. It is my understanding that the institutes produce an annual 

work plan matching their $1.5 million authorization delivered to the Forest Service 

before their funding is allocated. Is the funding for the three individual institutes 

based on their annual submissions of projects, or is it just based on historic levels 

and an archaic formula? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 allocation was based on the distribution in the fiscal 

year 2008 Appropriations Bill, the last year in which allocations were specified by 

Congress: Northern Arizona University $1,200,000 (80 percent); Colorado State University $150,000 (10 percent); and New Mexico Highlands University $150,000 (10 

percent). 

Question. What will the Forest Service do to provide additional financial resources 

for the New Mexico and Colorado programs that are a part of SWERI? 

Answer. Over the years, the Forest Service has provided additional funding to the 

Institutes through other partnerships and competitive processes. The Forest Service 

meets regularly with representatives from each Institute to discuss funding, upcoming work plans, and outyear planning. Our Southwest Region develops annual work 

plans for each Institute in consultation with the Department of the Interior and 

State Foresters. We will continue to meet and engage in discussions about funding 

levels appropriate for each Institute’s outyear work plans. 

Question. The President’s budget calls for an increase of $20 million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. What are the plans for the additional funding—will new projects be started, or is the increase to provide higher levels of funding to the existing projects? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget would permit the investment in 

up to 10 new CFLRP projects. New CFLRP projects would be submitted by Forest 

Service Regions and reviewed by an Advisory Committee. As specified in the law, 

the Advisory Committee will then submit recommendations for funding projects to 

the Secretary of Agriculture, who will make a final decision regarding project selection. 

Question. In fiscal year 2014, the Forest Service was provided with $2 million for 

a Restoration Partnerships program to improve relations with utilities and increase 

non-Federal funding for fuels treatments. Why did the Forest Service not request 

specific funding for this program in fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016, and what 

is the Forest Service doing to continue this type of activity without specific funding? 

Answer. This budget item was not requested for fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 

2016 because similar activities will be carried out through partnerships under the 

proposed Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item. 

Question. How is the Forest Service working with utilities to ensure that fires like 

the 2011 Las Conchas Fire in New Mexico, started by a downed power line, will not 

happen again? 

Answer. Our Lands staff has been substantially engaged in this issue. We have 

worked closely with Edison Electric and our partner Federal land management 

agencies to draft revisions to a national MOU to facilitate cooperation and coordination with utilities regarding vegetation management on Federal lands, both inside 

and outside of their rights of ways. The parties have also engaged with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to understand how State entities can be more involved in vegetation management planning and control. We also meet regularly with 

utilities to identify any specific instances where they have been unable to complete 

required vegetation work, and send representatives to Western Governors Association and Western Utilities Group meetings ( scheduled for May 2015) to discuss any 

adjustments to regulations, policies, or practices that facilitate cooperation in maintaining rights of way. 

Question. In the case of the Las Conchas Fire, we have a situation where the Forest Service—an agency of the USDA—is suing a rural co-op, which is supported by 

USDA loan authority, over the downed power line that reportedly led to the fire. 

What is the Forest Service doing to avoid these fire starts—and subsequent expensive litigation—in the future? 

Answer. We are developing a day-long workshop for agency leadership on energy 

development on National Forest System lands. This workshop will provide information on current and anticipated energy development project proposals and clarify the 

agency’s role, responsibilities, and requirements to support energy demands in rural 

communities. 

Question. In response to the endangered species listing of the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse in June 2014, the Forest Service has since fenced off riparian 

areas to protect the mouse. This has upset local ranchers who have grazed in some 

of these areas for generations. What is the Forest Service doing to ensure ranchers 

are informed and have reasonable access? 
63 

Answer. The Forest Service is actively working with affected grazing permittees, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other stakeholders on developing approaches 

to ensure the protection and recovery of the endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse while accommodating continued grazing. Affected permittees have been 

informed of the opportunity to participate in the consultation process with U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service through applicant status, as well as the opportunity to participate in any NEPA processes, and multiple opportunities for face-to-face discussions 

on these issues. 

In fiscal year 2014, the listing of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse required the Forest Service to take immediate measures to protect occupied habitat 

which was not already within riparian enclosures. These enclosures allowed continued access to water for cattle and did not result in any reductions in permitted grazing numbers or change in permitted season of use. Of the 22 allotments with proposed critical habitat in New Mexico and Arizona, only two allotments required installation of temporary fencing, 13 already had permanent fencing in place, and the 

remaining allotments were either vacant, lacked occupied habitat, or were not 

scheduled for grazing after the listing. A relatively small percent of each allotment 

is within proposed critical habitat. 

The final determination of any further protective measures or change in grazing 

management will depend upon pending consultation, final designation of critical 

habitat, and any required NEPA analysis. Further details are available on the 

Southwestern Regions Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/home/ 

?cid=stelprd3809040. 

Question. Water is a big concern for New Mexicans and for Westerners generally. 

The severe drought in the Southwest weighs heavily on the shoulders of land and 

water managers and users in the region. What role does the Land and Water Conservation Fund play in helping to protect watersheds throughout the National Forest System? 

Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund plays an important role in protecting intact, healthy watersheds, as well as lands in compromised watersheds that 

are good candidates for restoration to improve water quality and quantity. New 

Mexico has a great example—the Miranda Canyon acquisition recently completed on 

the Carson National Forest. Just over 5,000 acres of protected lands in the headwaters of the Rio Grande River as well as the entire Arroyo Miranda watershed 

were acquired, to protect watersheds throughout the National Forest System and to 

provide drinking water to local communities. 

Question. In fiscal year 2014, the Forest Service proposed an increase of $12 million for Research and Development, but in both the fiscal year 2015 budget and now 

the fiscal year 2016 budget, there is a $17 million reduction. What will be the impacts of this overall reduction—and why this abrupt switch from proposed increases 

to decreases? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget the Forest Service proposes 

$291,982,000 for Research and Development (R&D), with $83,000,000 for the Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program and $208,510,000 for the other portions of 

R&D. This is an increase of $13,000,000 for FIA and a decrease of $17,000,000 for 

other R&D programs. 

Fiscal Year 2015 

Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2016 

President’s Budget Change 

Non-FIA programs .......................................................................... $226,000,000 $208,510,000 ¥$17,018,000 

FIA programs .................................................................................. 70,000,000 83,000,000 ∂13,000,000 

R&D Total ....................................................................................... 296,000,000 291,982,000 ¥4,018,000 

As the Nation’s ‘‘Forest Census’’, FIA provides information on forest health today 

and how forests are likely to appear 10 to 50 years from now. FIA is foundational 

to restoration efforts on National Forest System lands as well as private forestland. 

The additional $13,000,000 will provide for the first time inclusion of interior Alaska 

to the FIA program and improved measurements and research capacity, including 

the improved estimation of forest carbon inventory, land cover and timber products 

output. 

The $17 million proposed decrease to the non-FIA research portfolio will result 

in a loss of capacity to the non-FIA research programs. These proposed changes reflect the difficult choices made to support the priority of forest restoration work 

while providing for growing fire suppression costs and meeting deficit reduction 

goals. 

Question. What will be the impacts of the proposed Research and Development 

budget cut on research into cost-effective biomass uses that could result in economic 
64 

benefits, such as the nanotechnology work occurring at the Forest Products Laboratory? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget would fund continued research 

into cost-effective biomass uses; however, some research may need to be conducted 

at a slower pace. 

Question. How does the Forest Service intend to maintain a focus on market development for biomass with this proposed cut in Research and Development? 

Answer. Market expansion and development for high value, high volume biomass 

uses from low value wood would be funded by the Wildland Fire Management account. Specifically, hazardous fuels funds would be made available for market development through grants to States and funds for the Forest Products Marketing Unit 

(FPMU) at the Forest Products Laboratory. 

Question. Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness is slated for a $2.3 million increase 

in the fiscal year 2016 budget request. However, within the program, Recreation 

management is up $3.7 million, Special Use Authorization administration is up $2.3 

million, and Wilderness/Wild & Scenic River management is cut by $2.9 million. 

Why does Recreation need more vs. Wilderness in fiscal year 2016? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2016, we propose to strengthen and enhance the public’s 

connection with the outdoors through privately provided services, expanding citizen 

stewardship through partners and volunteer opportunities, and enhancing the quality and delivery of information to the public. 

In fiscal year 2016, an increase in funds for Recreation Operations funds will support: (1) further engagement of youth, veterans, and underserved populations, via 

our partnerships through the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps (21CSC); 

and (2) delivery of accurate, real-time data on recreation opportunities to enable 

more efficient, mobile and consistent data management for use by the public as well 

as vendors. 

The decrease in funding for Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers program reflects 

both a reduction in funding associated with the completion of the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and our celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. The budget proposes a shift in funds towards special use administration, 21CSC, and expanding our digital infrastructure by supporting a public-facing 

web portal for permit requests. These investments will support the more than 5,000 

outfitters and guides whose livelihoods depend on our public lands and waters, including many that operate in and around Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

Question. In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) adopted the Land Between the 

Lakes (LBL) Land and Resource Management Plan or the ‘‘Area Plan.’’ This plan 

includes information pertaining to the land allocations (i.e. forest, open lands, recreation and environmental education), and strategies for supporting these designations, and other criteria to be used to maintain the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. After 10 years executing the Area Plan, visitors, residents, 

and others have noticed a recent uptick in logging and burning by the USFS at 

LBL, meanwhile other needed infrastructure and maintenance projects continue to 

go unaddressed by the USFS. These misplaced priorities have caused much concern 

among hunters, horsemen, hikers, residents, preservationists, and others that visit 

the park. It is my understanding that these constituents, as well as locally elected 

officials, have called on your agency to provide all management plans and financial 

documents relating to the Area Plan, and for the USFS to halt any logging and 

burning until this information is received and reviewed by the community, so that 

they may engage in a transparent and public dialogue with your agency. 

Has your agency provided this information to the community to date and, if not, 

when does it intend to do so? 

Answer. The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area (LBL) is engaging the public in conversations to address these concerns. The first public meeting 

was held on April 28, 2015. Lyon County Judge-Executive Wade White requested 

and was sent information regarding public engagement in the development of the 

LBL Area Plan. The unit has also shared information on budget allocations for fiscal 

years 2013 through 2015. 

Question. Do you intend to suspend logging and burning at LBL until you address 

the community’s concerns regarding this matter? 

Answer. The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area Supervisor has 

committed to: 

—delaying offering additional timber sales until the public could be engaged in 

a conversation about land management; 
65 

—addressing visual concerns on existing timber sales brought up by the public 

from the Trace Scenic Highway (existing timber sales will continue to operate 

per contract obligations), and 

—starting a conversation with the public about land management. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 18, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.]