work and dedication and i turned back to you, and senator murkowski. ..

and what with our research and development, we are going to continue to do our work to be able to understand what we need to do to be able to resort forests and address the insect and disease outbreaks and continue our work to be able to find ways to expand current markets and develop new markets or would to be able to make use of the biomass that has to be removed from the landscapes to restore the healthy forest. we also provide an adequate level of fire suppression to deal with fires to suppress fires where we need to come in at the same time be able to manage them in the country. we will have over 21 air tankers

in the 300 plus helicopters, over a thousand engines and the hotshot crews. the thing i need to stress, and i appreciate the support from the committee on finding a solution to pay for the cost of fire suppression. i appreciate the additional money that was supplied into the account, but i think that we have all seen what happens with the account and whether that will help us this year is not a solution. we just have to find a way to be able to permanently stop the transfer, the disruption of the work every fall. we need to find an alternative to the ten year average that is no longer working. it is not a viable budget approach. and we need to i think come to an agreement, understanding there is one or 2% that occur every year that are a natural disaster and you should be

funded as a natural disaster. so, we are anxious to be able to work with the committee and work to be able to find a solution so that once and for all, we can actually stop the disruptive practice and allow us to focus on what the public needs to be able to give the committee and the appropriators some discretion so they don't have to use up all of their discretion to be able to pay for fires. one keynote from fy 15 to by 17 and the proposed fy 17 budget, the average goes up another $237 million. that's what we are up against. and what drives the cost? the interface. that along with the changing conditions. the researcher says it's 68 days longer, good two to three months longer than we had years ago. those are not going to change.

we can make a difference by reducing the hazardous fuels and reduce the severity's of fire and make it safer for the firefighters in the communities, but it's going to take a combination of fixing the budget and allowing us to be more proactive and get out in front of this. it's one of the best job creators we have to restore the service. i appreciate the time you've given me, and i look forward to your questions. >> know that the senator and i had hoped that march would be the month that we would really be able to focus on spending a lot of time both in and out of the committee on the wildfire peace, and i think that we have pushed back a little bit echoes of trying to get the bill across the finish line but i know i certainly remain committed to trying to figure this out and did more than just a year-by-year approach.

i want to begin my questions with the tongass and the issues i raised in my opening statement about this transition to young growth without first completing a standard level inventory beyond growth. last year the forest service provided for a million million from its budget for the transition remark about 2 million has gone to start work come to start work on the inventory studies in so far i understand about four to 6 million more is likely needed for the studies and additional inventory. and the interesting thing is both the timber industry and the environmental groups agree to basically prove this out. can you give me information this morning in terms of how much funding you are proposing to support the young growth transition and where the money

is coming from because we don't see it listed in the budget proposal despite being a secretary mandated initiative. >> madam chair, the budget funding will be able to continue the standing level inventory as part of the funding that we allocated to the region. >> do you take it to other parts within the forest service budget allocated in alaska? >> it's part of the funding that we've received we received to be able to do the inventory so that is part of the budget that they are receiving to be able to do that work. and the cost share agreement working with the state forrester to be able to do that standing level inventory so that we are developing information for project implementation, standard level inventory is not information that is needed for the plans. to be able to move forward on

the designer projects into the future because this transition is going to occur in the out years. it's not occurring today but we are moving forward with that and so we will continue to not only do the standing level inventory that we are also doing studies from the research and development folks so we have a better understanding of where is the potential market for the younger girls, the type that would come off of the surface and in addition to that, we are continuing to do the study about how to better understand how to thin out the forests. we've been doing a lot of commercial painting over the years and we've had a study that's been going on for ten years and we want to continue to do that so that we can better understand how to manage the stands as we move forward. >> let me ask then, because i am concerned if you haven't specifically allocated within the budget funding for these inventory studies and you are

just taking it out of the region accounts, again, where we see things shortchanged we had a conversation just last year about how the recreational funding within the alaska, within the region had effectively been cut back dramatically when you put put it side by side with what was going on in the rest of the country we ask that to be rectified and that is another question i have for you. again it speaks to the issue if you haven't allocated more to this inventory and you have an analysis at least three independent analyst is to save a young growth stands are too small to support the local manufacturing industry, how can you make a plausible determination that we can do this transition? i'm looking at this realizing how long it takes to do this

study, the cost associated with if not seeing it specifically in the budgets of the question this morning is whether people consider postponing the transition until we have a complete young growth inventory and a financial analysis that are completed in order to determine whether or not a transition is even feasible. >> senator, it is essential that we move forward and complete the amendment. >> but don't we have to have the study and the money? then you have a plan amendment that isn't based on a strong sound analysis and the science attached to it. >> two decades of controversy and litigation around the harvest. >> you just have to get to a second growth because we can't make the trees grow any faster.

that's the problem. >> part of it is to also develop new markets for the growth. we are working together --. i want to try to be more respectful of everybody's five minutes because the last hearing i was very generous with folks and we want to get to everyone's questions. i will turn over because we will have another opportunity. >> you mentioned a couple things when you were talking about this at the front-end of the problem in the urban interface and a changing of conditions i'm assuming you're talking about. do you think that the prescribers and fuel reductions would yield a dividend in this process and do you think that the ten year stewardship contracts have been successful or do we need to look at the scoring and cancellations and

look at making them even more predictable and what do you think of that mix of the solution? >> the work that we are doing is making a difference, and we have dozens to probably hundreds of examples now where we send out the forest and reduce the threat that made it easy to suppress the fire and it made it easy for the firefighters come as a combination of giving the mechanical timber harvested using the prescribers is making a difference to reduce the overall threat. in addition to the stewardship contracts, they've proven to be an effective tool not only to build more trust or support it provides that certainty especially the longer-term second tenure contract that provides a certainty to make the investments and get the loans if they know that the work is there

and it's making a difference. you may we need to find ways to make that easier for not only the operator for the agency? yes, i'm interested in doing that. our biggest challenge right now is to be able to accelerate the work. going back to the comment i would love to be up here asking for more money. i can make a strong case to ask for an increase for the recreation but once again, any increase in the force service budget goes into the cost of the cause of the fire suppression, and that is a burden. if i could ask about that because i think that's what i have is 88% of the forest service fuel treatments were effective at stopping wildfires that burned so what i would like is to get something from the forest service as an analyst us

of what you think a robust program on prepared us and fuel reduction would look like in reducing what are just guesses because we are not predictors of everything that will happen for 100,000 acres borne out in the afternoon because of high wind. we never know when something like that is they do happen but with 88% effectiveness in fuel reductions by if we look at the offer between two to $4 billion a year cost to the federal government or the suppression, what percentage might we see in that cost and they know there is a little bit of guesswork, but it seems to me that we need to get a better understanding of this. do you think that or then ten

year laura van tenure contracts are needed? -- contracts are needed? >> it is one of the things we will continue to expand. we are getting about 30% of the work now through the contracting that i would definitely like to see more of the long-term contracts. >> and and could you comment on that as a value product? >> is another one of the efforts that we have from the lab to be able to develop the new market. currently we have four plans in the united states of using the clt. one of them is having to import the material. this is a great opportunity for us to be able to expand it to use the small diameter material to be able to use it for tall buildings as one of the things we are trying to encourage.

it's the product that allows us to be able to build these tall buildings and we are moving forward with a couple of examples for a good tall building material. you mention serious concerns about the way that the forest service forest service is prioritized and its management objectives. the service values expansion of the costly counterproductive programs as i see it are more than maintenance and management of current assets. funding increases for new roads roads and land acquisitions in funding for capital improvements and road maintenance, timber products remains were goes down a little bit. it seems they should we evaluate the priority is, not only when the investment in the management of the current assets over the backlog that it would actually help improve the forest users

experience to help the watershed and help decrease the incidence and severity of the catastrophic wildfires catastrophic wildfires but we are all concerned about. so when the forest service has about a $5 billion maintenance backlog project and is really unable at this point to address these in the current priority structure. >> with our request for the funding which is very close to what we have received the last few years once again it is targeted on acquiring those properties to provide access to guarantee access to the public. the cases i personally dealt with come every time we acquired the land it reduces the administrative cost and allows us to do larger projects we don't have to worry about the boundary management so it's an investment and something that the public is interested in and

acquiring these key parcels. with the budget request from what we have seen last year i wish we could ask for more but when we have to look at finding that additional funding and a constrained budget, something has to give and there are difficult choices we have to make separate is one of the few areas that went down in the request between 16 and 17 but you also see b. are br asking for additional money for fire suppression. that's what we are up against. spent last september that department announced federal landscape scale conservation plans that have impacted the plans that are controversial. given the conservation of work that's already been undertaken in states like wyoming and the management plans five months

have passed since the announcement and agency person now on the ground in wyoming still don't have guidance documents about how or when they plan to implement the plans but it hasn't stopped the agency from seasonal uses like local forest may change so how is it possible the agency staff can notify the permittee is that agency policy might change when they have end yet received guidance documents? >> we have statewide meetings to be able to meet with folks throughout the state and to be able to talk about how to move forward with this. we have a two to three year period so we want to focus on what are the changes we can make and where can we apply the investments we want to make to be able to improve the habitat and at the same time to work with the permittee is about how they can modify their operations over the next three years to be able to mitigate the facts.

we were going to put over $7 million into the habitat improvement projects and then in the budget request we've increased that along with the money in the spending that the plan is to be able to work with folks to address these issues. your state has done an excellent job to put the information together and so we are optimistic that give us a few years for the impacts should at the same time ensure that the uses are still there. >> that is my concern the last couple of weekends. with the agency personality and the governor's office because you are right wyoming has done an exceptional job and is a place that has done it right but we don't want to compromise the hard work we've done in other western states so thank you

madam chair. >> chief tidwell, welcome back. i want to start with the landscape restoration program. we have a couple projects in new mexico that have done some great work in the toolbox it's working on all the things we want to do in the forest. we are about seven years into the program and i'm starting to get questions from collaborators about how to continue the progress we've been able to make and in particular three years is not a lot of time or certainty someone to ask do you support an extension of cs lrp or a second round of authorization projects and how can communities that have successfully implemented the programs make sure the work continues after the end of the authorized collaborative project?

>> we are in the 17 budget request and continue funding for the 23 projects we have ongoing. we want to extend the lead to expand the project and add additional projects. we are to that point we also need to be thinking about how to extend this beyond the ten years so it's something that will take legislative action to add additional projects and expand the funding that's available but also to be able to extend this and i look forward to working with the community to find ways to do that. >> i look forward to working with you to make sure that we do extend the program and working with my colleagues as i said this is a program that is effectively fitting for the forest doing it right with enormous community support we need to use the tools that are working. on the issue a little more specifically to mexico and in

western new mexico, the sandia mountain trails partnership has been working for many years to build up a mountain bike and other trails in the national forest. after several years of delays we were expecting a final project last december that there was further delayed until the spring. recreation is one of the growing sectors in the state. counties and other partners have committed to working to contribute funding to actually build the trails so we need the forest service to get a final decision in place so that this can move forward. can you commit to me today that we are going to see that next month as it was expected? >> i will have to get it back to you, but i'm not sure we will have it done.

i am confident from what i've been told that we will get it done this year. >> the timeline has left and it's an example where you have counties and businesses and the local forest working together on something that built a lot of trust and example so it's really quite frustrating when the timeline's lip -- slip. this year is a little disappointing because this isn't the first time i've heard this timeline slip multiple times now. it's certainly frustrating for the local communities. we will follow-up with you on that but i certainly hope that this would finally be done next

month. i am aware of no reason it shouldn't be done. no new information coming out major changes in the direction. so i look forward to following up with you and getting more specifics and i hope that this can happen a little sooner than that. the permitting issue was covered by the ranking member. can you talk just a little bit about your efforts because i think this is incredibly important to make it easier to get the constituents out whether they are doing that with an outfit guide or the ymca or nonprofit. >> we've been going through the process to be able to look at how we can do a better job and

make it look easier. in addition to that, we are also looking at how we can change the current policy to allow those noncommercial groups to go out without a permit. it's one of those things we are working on in conjunction and the department of interior to be able to make it about easier for the noncommercial groups come to church groups, the sticky groups etc. to be able to facilitate that and get more people out. i am excited about the project and we will start implementing that this year. >> glad to hear that madam chair. >> welcome, chief tidwell. i said before that the construction and maintenance when we were talking about the pipeline coming and i'm talking about a different capacity in the state and west virginia we have a gas boom in the area and

we want to maximize the obvious potential, but i want to ask about the involvement process. as you know it is a coordinating agency thanks to the chair man at the base energy bill that includes my proficient streamlining the natural gas permitting which would designate the lead agency to make it hopefully move quickly and more smoothly. smoothly. currently i don't think the process is moving as it should. there are excessive delay is in the process. some of the parts are getting permission to get a survey on the ground in review the data and then provide feedback in a reasonable ounce of time and then to determine if an amendment is needed to the land management resource plan these are some of the areas so my question is do they have the adequate resources to complete its part of the process in a

timely manner and if not, what does the forest service need? >> if we had a larger staff similar to what we had ten years ago, we would be able to be more responsive and work a little bit faster but when it comes to a pipeline to the pipeline, the public's concern about the placement, the maintenance of pipelines, they want to be assured that it's going to be constructed in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary impacts and resources and it's constructed in a way that is safe. so we work with the companies and ideally if they would come in and we have the upfront discussions about what do they propose so we have the information so we can quickly eliminate certain areas that are going to be potentially problematic in certain areas that are environmentally

sensitive to announce the pipeline around goes, those, that's how the process works and we are making good progress. ideally i'd wish that we could very start come together and share all that information and that's one of the things we are trying to do a better job so when we hear about a proposal was to quickly sit on the down the proponent and be able to share our information to find the right route for the pipeline so we can quickly go through the analysis to be able to make the decisions that they are working to make them go ahead. >> and i don't disagree with anything that you've said here. i think you said quickly three times and i think that is sort of the basis of my question is the timeliness of the decision. it's not disputing that there are problem areas or sensitive areas that you as foresters know precisely what would it enumerate the general public.

i think it is just trying to streamline the process. these are difficult issues in certain areas and that is understandable so i would just ask you, and we will follow-up to see if there is a way to make the process actually move quickly in a timeframe that works. i tried to get timelines and i timeline since i couldn't get them all the way into the bill. my second question, as you know, the business state and private forest into stewardship program is providing assistance to the state forrester's and 90% of them are successfully implemented. i guess as a byproduct of the plan are owned by individual states provide almost 50% of the nations would supply so my question is why he is the administration proposing to increase the fuel management budgets from federal land and

decreasing the stewardship program? the landscape restoration account which allows the state forrester's to be able to use the funds for stewardship or community industries and they could have the funds together so they can look at larger scale projects and not be limited to just looking at one piece of the problem. so the feedback we are getting from the state when we started the program last year is that they liked it. they have to compete for it but the ones that are quick to see how they compete especially to work with their neighbors said the actual funding stayed the same, we are just proposing to add additional funding into the restoration account. >> said the landscape is scale

restoration has no minimum for each state forrester. >> they compete for that. >> this effort to end the fire borrowing seems like the longest running. we have been at this since before i was the chair of the committee. for colleagues this is about rating the prevention fund in order to fight fire and i was very pleased that the chair senator murkowski has talked about this and senator cantwell and i think everybody knows in this room heading to yes on four straight policy is a really heavy lift and you have to have a bipartisan approach. i think by way of getting this going this year, how important is it to you to have the

bipartisanship of this committee get with the bipartisan leadership in the house and start working with all of you that are going through the regular order using the bipartisan leadership in the house but we will get out of the gates. we are now as i think 20 cosponsors, 145 bipartisan members in the house, 260 groups and i just want to find a way working with my colleagues with bipartisan leadership in both parties to get this done. how important is it to you that that starts quickly? >> it is essential. it's for the american public. almost every question i get asked, and they are all very good questions, i would have a different answer if we were able to fix this years ago when i

think about the funding in the average and what could we have done with another $237 million to be able to address the recreational needs to be proactive with forest management and address more hazardous fuel? i understand how difficult this is but when i asked folks last year i said what happens if this keeps going 67% of the budget. last year when i was appearing were talking 50 independents 56%. i appreciate all the hard work that's gone into it and i understand it's difficult because if it was easy it would have been done a long time ago. but it is essential, and we are committed to work with the senate and the house to be able to find a solution.

your bill is definitely one of those solutions. there's other good ideas and we are committed to be able to work with that and find something durable. you passed the act a few years ago and i was up here applauding that. it looked good. it didn't work for a lot of good reasons. so i appreciate the ranking members excuse me, the chair's comment that this needs to be durable and we've been at it for a long time so let's find a way to be able to do it so that it isn't something that we revisit in a couple of years. you indicated that you are open up to the approaches. the chair noted something that i've long agreed with we've got to have active management. there's no question about that. we also have to find a way to get this done because it makes a mockery out of the budget which is probably a little more

colorful way to say what you've been saying and other people have been saying for years so we are going to do everything we can through for the leadership on both sides of the capitol to work with you and get this done and i know the senator has been working with me on this. one last point, i want to thank you for the good work your folks have been doing in portland. they've been doing exceptional work but as you know we've had some serious public health questions. i live in southeast portland. people are really concerned about the risk of toxic metals that relates to the industrial work done and it looks like there are some big gap that will pick the size of a lunar crater but it wouldn't come without the groundbreaking research that your people have done so i am

almost out of time. are but are you going to need additional funds to continue this in the future? >> it is another example how it is a can only identify the problems but the final solutions and it's a sensual that we maintain the research development budget. when i look at where we were in the mid 80s we had over 1100 we had less than half of that today. the scientists scientists were doing a are doing a better job working with universities etc. but it shows you the power and benefits of science, seduces one example to benefit and it also leads us to finding a solution to be able to use vegetation and the forests to provide clean air

and water. that's the solution that comes out of science. >> for the pretty and durable solution. there is other activities that we have gone making a difference and i can tell you in arizona as you've seen and i've seen they have many differences. we have towns that are still there that wouldn't be otherwise, but we obviously have a lot of forests to treat and i appreciate you coming into my office and detailing some of the plans that you have to expedite that and the new chief executive position that's important for the budget increase. can you talk a little bit more

about the biggest kind in terms of the projects for project for the forest restoration initiative and what plans do we have to be existing contracts and those on the outside to expedite the forest restoration? >> you mentioned that it was the first of its kind to be able to do the analysis with one document so said nokia 540,000 acres that's ready for work to be able to under the project. we continued to work with the contractor to expand their production. they did have their best month on record in december and they will continue to expand. that's good. but in addition to that, we are moving forward to provide additional acres that need to be

treated for other operators in the state so they can build on me to bottle me the work that's being done by the good contractor but also to be able to get additional work going into the same time we have the rest of the state to worry about. it was a big project was just a piece of it and so that is the other challenge we have so when we look at the additional skills fundings and the changes we made in the management productions but we made it to be able to dedicate additional funds to be able to address the state said the changes we're making to be able to move faster and be able to use the farm belt authority and other projects and working with the state and potentially the good neighbor authority to expand their work. >> along those lines of the allocation budget priorities,

the eastern arizona eastern arizona county organization has discussed a few detailed lists and possible next steps in terms of the forest restoration on the east side. how do you plan to use the additional money for the region and in that regard would be dedicating some of it to the priorities that they've outlined? >> yes it will also be looking at using enterprise teams to get some of it done and also to be able to bring in additional people to put the project package together and then also to be able to look at what are whether some areas we can quickly get into so that we can continue to provide what those operators need and at the same time to also move forward on larger scale projects so that they, too mac can see multiple years of work versus what we will be able to do in 16 and have the question of what's happening in 17.

it's just another need for the long-term projects, and if we can get a few of those going on the east side of it and i think that you and i would be having a different discussion. >> as you know, arizona has a long history of planning for water needs. we have the colorado river that provides a good supply of the water that we utilized that one of the most important sources is the water runoff that we have in the forests. we've asked the governor and others to prefer some of the priorities for the state. one is to make sure that we treat our watershed and are able to realize over benefits that we can from that. as you know the healthy forest yields 25% more water.

given the experience in the solutions industry mining authorities, how can we utilize that we have hr 2567 in the federal forest act which is intended to help in terms of streamlining nepa. how important is that to you? >> that we have those that are supportive of christopher did so that we can successfully implement those. i look at the authorities that came out of the farm bill and the good neighbor authority that is allowing us to expand because they were put together in a way that provides assurances that had some questions about forest management. but at the same time, it allowed us to be able to reduce the paperwork into some of the documentation of analysis so they were very effective.

as we look forward for any authorities for me it has to be something that provides that level of trust so that we can use it because if you don't have that it creates more controversy and it will shy away from those using different authorities so that is the challenge as we go forward and once again, the word from the 2,014th farm bill and the insect and disease they are proving to be helpful and we are implementing those now. >> thank you madam chair. in recent years the budget has been dominated by one thing. the forests spent about 70% of its budget fighting fires in this and this year firefighting will eat up nearly half of the

agency's budget plus an additional $800 million that has been separately proposed for disaster funding. the large number of intensity of the fires increased and they are now using it for two and a half months longer than 1970. last year was one of the worst in decades with 10 million acres burning across the country. the conditions that produced are well known. can you describe the impact that climate change has had on major wildfires? >> the first is the length of the fire season and it's not just because it's longer. first of all it allows them to dry out that much more because they have another 60 days under the sun. so we not only see them

occurring earlier in the year but then act the end of the fire season of the fuel wasters are much closer to the burner at a higher intensity and that they are much more difficult to suppress. the other things things we're seeing are just hotter and drier weather so you have to longer fire season and then you have this dry weather and then the extensive droughts that we are having. the droughts were laughing -- lasting longer but it will take more than one year to recover from the droughts. there is one other key factor, and that is what if we have this warmer environments with the

harsh cold winters especially early in the year the insect and disease as are spreading. a good example here in the east it's been around here for a while and is a pretty much in a few state and then as we started to see the change in the climate, it's now been able to make it to canada. that is the other problem that we are dealing with is the environmental changes in climate changes. >> this is very troubling because the pace of climate change is now accelerating. if we can't make significant progress to address climate change, what can we expect about the cost of fires in the future?

>> it's going to increase, but what is more problematic is if we can't make more changes on the landscape to reduce the fuel to be able to do a better job to build a defensible space on the wii come out we will continue to lose thousands of homes. when we talk about the number of acres burned we lost 4500 homes on average for the last ten years we lose 3,000 homes every year and in addition to that the lives of the firefighters and public's have an opportunity here to be proactive and address changes in the landscape so when the fire does occur they are easier to control and safer for the firefighters and the public. those are the things that we have to work on and the scientists do not see any foreseeable change in the situations we are dealing with in the foreseeable future. >> when you talk about eaters that we lose and the lives that

we lose ultimately we need a real solution to fight wildfires. a solution that m. sure sufficient funding and keeps environmental protections in place and provide certainty for other services. and i appreciate the hard work that others on the committee have done to try to come to that solution. but the rising wildfire costs are another example of the price we pay if we fail to take decisive action on climate change. unless we take this problem seriously and take meaningful steps to end reliance on fossil fuels and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions cut the fires will get worse and we will spend more money and jeopardize my lives and damage more critical ecosystems that depend on the nation's forests.

spack thank you madam chair. thank you for your testimony. i share your commitment as i know many members of the committee to solve the wildfire funding challenge and increase active management of the national forests. i know across many in my home state of montana, habitual litigation from groups that do not represent the majority of the people in montana have been one of the keys moving forward with active management. i recently received information from that region one staff concerning litigation in montana and i was told that there are 21 active timber lawsuits going on in my state. that to me is astonishing, unacceptable. there were some students in my office recently in the vibrant

timber industry in montana. the only folks winning today are the lawyers. we need to change to the lawyers the communities are losing into the environment is losing as we are actively managing the force and i appreciate the comments on insects and the pine beetle. we can't even harvest dead trees often times because we are getting challenged by these fringe groups. i saw a study showed that the forest service completes more time-consuming environmental impact statements then any other federal agency. just looked just look to looked at the report this morning. it spends $365 million a year complying with federal law and regulations.

my question, chief tidwell, we look at the solution to go forward and i support changing the way for that the wildfires are funded as well as ensuring that we move towards the active management and i think a big part of that is litigation if congress provided litigation release and regulatory relief in a way that maintains public trust is it fair to say they will be able to get a lot more work accomplished on the ground in a shorter timeframe. >> there are projects that are litigated. they've had much more litigation and we are seeing today and our staff and attorneys are getting a good doing a good job to work through the backlog and what's even more important is the trend. last year in the region ten, excuse me, region number one, we

have seven lawsuit and three of those were for the management of projects and we had no preliminary injunctions. a lot of the other other issues we're dealing with are we are dealing with are continuing to stay the same or increase so the solution as i look at this, and i've spent a lot of time dealing with my career is that if we can find ways to understand. a lot of it comes from people

believe we are trying to do something else. however for the 21 projects under litigation, 16 to 21 were collaborative who were at the table working together across various stakeholders are yet i think that it should be encouraged but i strongly believe that more needs to be done to protect the collaborative from this handful of fringe instruction rests who repeatedly upended the hard work and frankly demoralized focus for trying to find a solution as

we watch the forest bird in the summertime. for the vibrant economy i just ask that we continue to work to find ways to d. incentivize the fringe groups that are litigated in a lot of the projects. they are making a difference and yes it is extremely frustrating. it's what work needs to occur and then if they come in and fight all the lawsuit and it is frustrating. the way to be able to incentivize the collaboration and to work with congress the last two years and they recognize that and see that level of support it is making a difference and it is really the

answer building more support and stronger collaboratives. i think that it will also help more people to understand really what we are after. our employees are doing such an outstanding job for the communities to expand the work every year and be able to hit their targets even with litigation that they are still dealing with. thank you madam chair for the clear connection for the climate change and the continuing challenges of fighting forest

fires. the collaboration is what we want to pursue for the forest resources and challenges to work with the forest service and be depend on the expertise. it's very specific to what's going on in the states. in the president's 2017 budget this includes prioritizing the island forests at risk proposals for the land and water conservation commission fined as well as the inclusion of the wilderness area in why you. as you know the natural resources are facing numerous

external threats and you're supporting these landscapes very much appreciated. there's nothing like visiting a place to gain a full appreciation of what's going on. it is a rapid pathogen. it's significant because it makes up 80% of our native forests. it's the most important aid of plant in hawaii and of course they have a lot to do with the watersheds. so what the stakeholders include

is that person out from the institute of the island for a straight with the state and private grants trying to answer several questions about this disease including transmission and resistance and we still need the resources to do the proper investigations and research. what can the forest service recommended to hawaii as it relates to the lessons learned for the practices when you've been confronted with other tree diseases and other states and with the incident command structure be helpful to identify and correct resources and are there creative ways that we can engage expertise across the service on the topic and what other resources may be available for assistance. >> we are working very closely with the agricultural resources and also the diversity of hawaii to be able to bring all the

resources together to first of all understand how this is being transmitted and to be able to then look at some ways to reduce the spread of this and then also we are doing work to look at genetic resistance to find which trees are able to fight off which fungus. it's been in hawaii for a while but it's just recently as it has gone into the trees. ..

>> but to be able to stop this we'll have to i think go beyond finding a solution. so those are the things we're continuing to work on. there's urgency to be able to quickly get out in front of this. but at the same time it's just another example of why our research and development program is so important, so that we do have the sciences, the capacity to be able to address these emerging issues. >> do you have enough money in your fiscal year 17 budget proposal to do the kinds of things you're doing? it's not just happening in hawaii. these kinds of unusual occurrences are happening across

the country i would imagine. so you need to have a robust capacity for research, test, what have you get is there enough money in the budget? well, there's never enough. >> i am pleased we were able to as for the amount of monday we do have. -- money. until we fix this wildfire suppression funding situation we are not going to be able to be in a position to be able to ask. idq we have an adequate level in research and development, but it's one of the things we need to be aware of as is going to be more and more invasive. research and development is one air we need to increase our investment in. >> thank you and i think the chairwoman's leadership. look for to working with you. >> senator cassidy and then senator lee.

>> last september the epa published recommendation for standards as well as ecolab's for use in federal procurement. recommendation for lumber defines i think fsc, you'll know the term, the forest stewardship council certified by including that not including it, therefore excludes that he will a standard forestry initiative and the atf is, the american tree farm system. first in louisiana about 85% of all of our lumber is either one. but then i bought so been told that from the national forest service land there's about 42000 jobs attribute to the forest products. and that the forest service does not allow the harvested wood to

be subjected to a third party standard. so not only are 85% of my foresters excluded, but the entirety of the national forest service is excluded by the epa standards. and i'm also told that both the fsi and adfs have the same sort of standards as the fsc can all these initials, i'm sorry, but that they are just not included. thoughts on them. why should we allow a national forest service products to be excluded based on the own rules and epa rules? >> senator, i'm going to look into this but there's no question. we support the fsi, the tree farm, fsc certifications. it's something that's in your state, the majority of private land is certified. so we've always been supportive of that. so this is something i'm going to look into but it raises the question of potential problems.

because when you think about clean air and to think about clean water, we need to be thinking about healthy forests in maintaining our forests. so today our nation's forest which is the majority of them are private land, ma as in your state. they said was from a 12-40% of this youtube that's been made each year. if we lose those forests and if it is a waste be able to have viable markets for the would, private land owners are going to develop their land for some other use. so it's essential that we make sure things we are considering, it actually helps us to be able to maintain forests on the landscape. so this is an issue i've looked into and get back to you on it but it is problematic when, we were looking at things especially we are concerned about clean air and clean water, we've had to make sure that it allows us to maintain our forests.

and part of that is to be able to strong economic market for the would. so it's essential that we have both are i will look into this and get back to. >> it's interesting, you just kind of put a nice perspective, the degree to which the federal government passes regulations it makes it uneconomical for someone to have a forest. that forest would be put to other economic uses and the federal government will be working against clean water, against having come if you will, of some forest you to if that's the priority, and clean air. so the federal regulations that restrict the access of another federal agency to these products works against these stated those are the agency, is that a fair way to put? >> it could. once again i'm not familiar with this epa regulations on going to get back to you on that. but my point was that we need to

be very careful that, we need to understand the benefit of our forests and just never public land a forest that are going to stay forest did. but the majority of our forests in this country private and if we lose those private lands, we lose the potential to be able to not only store carbon but provide a clean water, wildlife habitat, like racial settings. so it's essential that we consider the impacts of any of our regulations so that what we want to be able to do is to promote that, and then at the same time to be able to answer the question that yes, this is being managed in a sustainable way. because some of our markets in europe, there's people that are questioning our forest management in this country because of the standards that they have in some other european countries require that they would products are coming from sustainable managed for us. so it's essential we be able to

do that but at the same time be able to do it in a way that we can maintain these forests. >> if i think about come if for no other reason just the amount of carbon that is being stored, if we lose that sync, you know, we're going to have to find other ways to get to deal with the. it's just another one of the benefit that i'm not sure everyone recognizes. >> we would impose that question for the record and we look forward to your reply if you have a chance to review. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for being here with us today. agriculture plays a pretty significant role in my home state of utah. our state's economy is quite dependent on agriculture, especially many of the state's rural communities. because of the fact that two-thirds of utah's land is

utterly controlled, thousands of utah ranchers are dependent on federal land managers and the policies they set for the own livelihood, the old to do to feed their families and keep their farms and ranches operated. unfortunately, for these ranchers and their families, federal policies have become increasingly hostile toward livestock grazing. in fact, since the 1950s federal land managers have got livestock grazing rights by 74%. this is quite significant, cutting those who by 74%. this has created tremendous uncertainty for ranching families in utah and under the rule economies throughout my state. can you tell me, mr. tidwell, why have grazing permits declined dramatically since the 1950s? >> it would be a combination of things, but part of it would be the impact that was occurring from the grazing.

it's also the change with the multiple use, and that the public's interest in these lands for a variety of uses, whether it's for recreation, whether it's for wildlife, whether it is foreseen very. and so w when we look at how to manage these lands, we are going to continue to graze these lands, and we can do it in a way so that we can maintain, be consistent, maintain the riparian areas. we have thousands of places where we can do this. and so have they been reductions over the last 60, 70 years? sure there has. but you also remember that the reason the national forests exist in utah is that the communities petitioned congress to have been reserved from the public domain because of the lack of management that was occurring way back in the late 1800s. and so over time, yes, there's been reductions, but it's been

to be able to address the public's needs to provide not only multiple use but also to have sustainable grazing. when we do that then the permittees are in a place where they have that certainty. the other problem that we deal with is that we go through drought periods of time in utah like everyplace else, and when they go through those periods of time, there's just less forage and less capacity on the landscape. now, the ideal situation would be the permittees would be able to reduce their numbers during that time, and then when we do get the more favorable preset the years they could expand their operations. that's the place we need to be but it's very difficult for many of our ranchers have that flexibility. >> and i understand that a lot of considerations and i wouldn't dispute i don't think any utah ranchers would dispute the fact that it is necessary to restore

range lands come to a low range lands a chance to catch up so that our grazing permitting processes remain sustainable. but what i'm hearing from a number of rangers in utah is that even after rangeland has been restored, after being allowed to rest for a while, that it's still not opening up, that even once range conditions have improved substantially that the grazing rights are not being restored. so why is about? can you tell me why that is not happening? is that the case, first of all, and to the extent that's the case, how do you justify that? >> welcome each allotment has a management plan that basically lays out the rotation of the livestock, the duration and intensity of grazing. permittees follow that and so if there's available forage, it's available. a lot of it just depends on water. the more water distribution that

we can have, then you can spread the livestock out. it also depends on the operations. it's been my experience that we work with the permittees and we put a good plan together, and it's their plan. they run the livestock. we said these are the conditions that the public wants and needs from the landscape, so you have that opportunity to use that for that forage. and so there's a bright of things that factor into it but if the forage is there, we are making use of it. >> thank you, sir. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you, chief tidwell, for being here today. about a year ago when we were having our budgetary last you for the appropriations cycle we had a conversation about the forest service's work around water policies and a ski area water will. i understand late 2015 that the

service arrived at a ski area water closet that address the concerns of the ski industry, partners of the forest and i just want to thank you for your work on that. i would like to briefly touch on the importance of a healthy forest management practices. coloradans were living around oliver springs or close watching and incidents, a species come infestation of the douglas fir us at mall. i do for mystical to to me with a forest service on friday in the air of colorado springs the service as elegant as possible utilizing a categorical exclusion provision with the fargo to treat the affected areas. the douglas fir tree are incredibly beautiful and certainly a local economic driver and his was hoping to get your commitment to commute to work with the office of local stakeholders to come to resolution that will treat them off onto infestation of public lands would lead to a healthier forest and greater prevention from wildfires in the area.

>> you have our commitment to continue to work with the city and the county, able to address the activities of that form the authority. it's another example about the benefits of those authorities were put together in a way that your strong those to be able to use those comments o so this isa perfect example of that. >> madam chair --.com ranking member i would like to submit for the record the memorandum of understanding among colorado stakeholders for coordinated treatment of the douglas fir tussock moth it without objection. >> we prepared a supplement of our middle impact statement on the road little interested the north fork exemption to the rule. i'd like to thank you for your work on this issue to date and look forward to the final record of decision. i think it's important we recognize the value of gold mining in the valley at opal deception which is the result of years of negotiation and collaboration among the forest service, colorado and stakeholders.

madame chair ranking member i would like to to letters on the record the one from cover hickenlooper at another letter i joined advocate of a cinch to be upheld in the forest service's analysis. if i could get those submitted. >> without objection. >> thank you. recreation on forest service lands as a daemon is part of colorado speak only. senator shaheen and i are working on legislation that would focus more on the recreation economy, outdoor economy to get a better understanding of its economic impact. recent studies show the ski industry in the state generates about $4.8 billion annually. the vast majority of a 25 ski areas in colorado are located at least partially on national forest land. i've read the ski generate over $20 million in fees that go directly into the u.s. treasury. my concern is centered on reporting that the forest service is finding it increasingly just to keep up with the growing industry,

excuse me, they're going recreational industry including these ski areas. the most heavily used popular forest in the country is the white river national forest generating nearly $18 million of the fees paid to the treasury each year. but we've seen the white river national forest have steadily declined, the budget eroding and so they are struggling to uphold their end of the partnership. since 2090 to look at it did seem a 40% reduction in the budget, the white river national forest. as they take on new projects, as they did on purpose, expansion of summer recreation has been such a great success, so how do we address this him a the forest service level of erosion of capacity that is critical to colorado and so many other communities? >> we face the problem everywhere, not just in your state. the ski areas are great partners. they are often willing to actually help pay for additional analysis when you're looking at

expanding at a special as we know moving into the four seasons resorts to make full use of these facilities. we are doing what we can to be able to be a good partner, to be able to be responsive. but the problem you mentioned with the staffing, it's just something that occurred because of the cost of fire suppression. it occurred to graduate over quite a few years, over 10 plus years, to the point where we just have 33% fewer employees outside of fire than what we did just a few years ago. and so it's just another example. that being said, what we are looking at is to find ways so that we can actually be more efficient with our processes so we can be more responsive. it's one of the things we want to be able to sit down, especially for ski areas, where they can bring compassion to help wit with a problem but we l have a role. if we can find ways to be able to package a different proposal

together, to be able to get the work done up front so that their strong support, people in the public understands what's being proposed, we will continue to be able to do a better job. but it probably isn't going to satisfy their needs. we are just going to have to find a way to stop the erosion of our staff. >> specifically with the fire funding fix, how would that help on the staffing issue? how specifically can we make sure that that money then that's prevented from being drained away over here? >> the first thing, it would stop of the transfers so he wouldn't have to deal with that anymore. we wouldn't lose all that time and expense and funding. then the second thing is that we would be able to at least maintain our current staffing or ideally bill that over time because it would provide flexibility. budget space within the constraints so that

appropriators could add to our budget instead of constantly reducing it to be able to pay for fire. so the first thing is to stop the erosion and, indeed, able to create the space so that we can be proactive, not only on forest management would also be able to do with recreation so we can carry out our responsibilities to be a good partner with all of our recreation users, and especially the ski areas. >> chief tidwell, keeping in mind the drought maps, snowpack levels, as you're looking into the summer in the spring, spring into summer, when areas of the country are you concerned about from a forest fire perspective? >> this year with our projections, we are looking at having a analyst i figured thate had last year. but we are also seeing areas where we are getting a warm spring and we're seeing is no come off the low ground, the low areas. and so that's becoming a concern. so that in our lower elevations

we are now looking, it looks to me that we may have an early fire season. our higher country is going to be much better shape than it was last year, at least out west. so we may not have those large fires in high elevation. .com september it's going to dry out. one of the problems we have is that when asked to predict the fire season and our scientists can look at it and one of the things they do, they predict the cost. so for fy '16 our predictions right now is that we are 90% confident that the cost of this fire season is going to be between summer around 700,000,000,001.72 billion. and that's today. -- seven -- the ideally can actually predict, we've got great scientists but it is just so difficult. so even for this year i'll be able to give you a good projection in me, but probably

not until they can really answer your question. >> thanks, chief. thank you. >> thank you, senator gardner. chief tidwell, let me go back again to the tongass and the transition issue. i mentioned in my opening comments my concern that this transition only works if you have those that are able to stay in the business. we've had this conversation before, and i appreciate that the forest service has stuck with a big thorn sale. that's going to hopefully keep enough timber out there to keep things alive into the next year, but i do remain concerned about the future. in 2015 you sold no old growth at all. so far this year in 16 you are planning to sell just 51 million board feet, some kind of a revised sale comes out of this.

looking out to 2017 and beyond, old growth sale plan is pretty much nonexistent with the focus entirely on preparing for young growth sale. so every year when we sat down in this public forum, i raised the question to you, what do i say to people back home, what can i tell the folks at viking about how the forest service intends to keep them alive and other mills alive, given that really the source of timber that they could count on and to pay for any investment, much less encouraging to people who are working, whether at viking or others, encourage them to stay there. so what can you tell me that will be encouraging to the men and women in southeast that

continue to depend on a supply of timber? >> senator, i think our transition to young growth over time is the solution to be able to provide that certainty, to provide a bridge denver, to reach agreement that yes yes, te will be bridge timber made available -- >> but what do we do in the short-term? you say over time, and i think we can talk about overtime, but how do we keep them alive until then? because the outline i given you is we've got timber that we can look to this year that keeps us alive through next, but how do you see their future after that? >> we are continuing to move forward with our annual timber program while we are doing this. in fy '16 as a target for the focus of 62 million board feet. it's my understanding that they're committed to get that done. >> are you a lawyer, chief,

though that in order to keep this transition allied we've got to rely not only on what's coming off of the forest service lands but also off of nonfederal? and what i understand see alaska's told as recently as last week as they are going to have a difficult time continuing economic operations and that they're going to be seeking to supplement their timber supply with sales on the tongass. they tell me that they are going to need to buy 20 million board feet annually for perhaps 30 years for the tongass. so how do you make this all work? how do you make this all work, not just for this year and not just for 17, but if sealaska is saying they are going to need 30 years and you are suggesting

that you're going to be able to have 62 million board feet, how does this all pencil out? >> it starts by, the folks in alaska are working together, the state, sealaska to folks on the tongass and folks from the mental health trust to be able to look at how we can have really and all lands approach so that there's going to be x amount that's available for the industry. and actually work together. this is something that you get sick we should have been doing a better job in the past. however, we are looking at how we can do a better job as we move forward. and then based on that to be able to have the coordination between the programs. but it's essential that we are able to produce. and i wouldn't be up here telling you that without any question. i believe this approach that overtime to transition to the young growth is the solution to

be able for us to continue to provide the integrated wood products industry in southeast alaska. and guesswork would have to contend have the bridge of timber. we will also to be moving forward with some young growth to be able to start giving operators the chance to be able to export markets with that young growth. and so that it is our course. that's our plan over time to be able to do this. >> i understand it is a plan over time. and again, i am going to make something that works beyond the paper plan. because on paper it might be possible, but again you can't push this young growth timber to grow any quicker. you cannot be a fantasy plan. it has to be based on accurate analysis and assessment and a reality on the ground.

and i continue to have the same concerns that i have had. i will continue to express them, and it's not because i'm sitting back here in washington, d.c. reading some talking points. it's because i'm talking to the people that are on the ground that are out in the communities, that are on prince of wales island who do not believe that they have the capacity to hang on much longer. and they hear the good plans and they believe that it's nothing but pie in the sky. and the effort again from these families that have worked it so hard for so many decades and are not asking for the timber industry that was around 20 years ago, 30 years ago your they are asking to just be working with the facts.

i'm going to ask one more quick question and then turn to my colleague here, and this is regarding the proposed new forest wide standards and guidelines to address the renewable energy development within the tongass and the transition plan. you know that i have pushed for this last year, continue to do so, but what we are saying is guidelines that appear to be pretty simplistic looking, pretty vague and, therefore, it causes me to question how effective they can be. does the forest service plan to utilize an approach that would give greater clarity, more consistent enforceable guidelines through an approach

that has been considered to provide for renewable energy? because the issue that i am hearing is that what the forest service is proposing just doesn't provide enough clarity, that there is ambiguity that's not going to be helpful to folks. >> are you referring to the alternatives into forest plant and? >> yes. >> that's one of the benefits for the comments we receive, and i want to thank you for the letter, and well-written letter. >> it was a good letter. >> that's part of the comments and as we go through those, those are the things we're going to be addressing. but those other things, that the data we need on the plan. if it were things we need to change. that being said, i know so have at least five projects that are approved or under construction. there's another seven hydro projects we're working with ferc

to try to get through, plus another i think dozen that we are still looking to start the analysis on. so we are moving forward. so we are not waiting for the forest to plant a minute. will continue to work with folks to move forward to be able to implement those hydro projects. >> well, i would ask you to look to making sure that these standards come these guidelines really do do what we are hoping, which is to help facilitate the renewable energy development projects that we are talking about. let me turn to the senator cantwell. >> thank you, madam chair. chief tidwell, i want to ask about the ascot mind. the ascot resources canadian mining company is proposing to conduct an exploratory drilling on the adjacent of mount saint helen's which is a national volcanic monument. so the exploratory guilt mining development could impact about

900 acres, 165 of those acres of the proposed 900-acre develop it for purchase by the land and water conservation fund. you can see where i'm going here. why would the forest service allow for this proposal to move forward if you had already previously helped to make purchase of the land and water conservation fund? i want to understand how those two things can coexist together. i shouldn't say it that way. i don't believe they can. so interested in this process that you are moving through. >> senator, i share your concern, and i'm not certain on the timing of this but i understand we acquired that property using lw seattle years ago, and then we have is my proposal. pashtun lwcf. when we acquire propertie propey then become part of the national forest and the management has been covered under the forest plan. so it raises a question for us

to be thinking about this as we move forward to it that our areas depend on why this land was acquired, was it just to block out ownership, was it to provide public access to what was the key reason? the forest plan should ensure the purpose for acquired when should still exist but when we do have a mining proposal that comes in on top of that, it raises the question about doing a to do a better job to be thinking out on these key parcels that are being acquired so that if it's what the public is okay with them than we are okay with it. but if it raises those questions, it's something we need to be considering. this is somewhat unusual. it's happened at least once unaware of before but we acquired land and in a summit coming and stake a mining claim on it. >> i'm having a hard to understand how we would use lwcf

and i think it was a public use. lwcf is about protecting the public access and interest. so it's hard for me to believe that a doctor would say there's no recreational impact when literally held th at the cf is about preserving areas for recreational and public access for the future. that's why we're doing it because we don't want the development. >> well, mining is also part of the use that occurs on national forests, so it's one of the challenges that we have to be able to -- >> i'm not in production with lwcf. >> i agree. it's one of the things that i want to look at, how the committee of avoid these problems from happening in the future. but once those lines are acquired and they are managed as part of the national forest and if they are open for mining and there's a mining claim, then that proponent has the ability proposed an operation. >> anyway, i'm sure you will

hear from people who believe that it has recreational voucher and that it should be stated so in nepa document or i would ask you about road maintenance or the forest service is proposing to close a number of roads in the mount baker forest. there are a number of roads that are being proposed because of lack of maintenance funding. i want to understand how they can be proposing new roads we have this backlog of maintenance? >> senator, each year we build a very few number of roads, and often does our roads that are to replace existing roads, to be able to move a road out of town along the stream from its center, reduce the entire middle impacts. and then there's a few places where we did build a few roads and somewhere in the state of alaska. but however for many years a new roads we are building is always

is in a small number of maybe 10 or 15 miles per year. but your point about road maintenance isn't a shia we have a tremendous amount of backlog of deferred road maintenance that is contributing to not only the erosion of impacting the quality of our streams and a fisheries, et cetera. it continues to be an outstanding problem for us. so as a look at which roads need to be closed, we go through a public involvement process to identify those roads so that we can reduce some of the backlog of our deferred maintenance, reduce the impact of the streams and at the same time still provide for a level of public access. >> so i think of something like a 13% decrease in the road maintenance funding but you have an existing 3 billion backlog. so to me i don't know where you

were talking about specifically building the new roads, but trying to understand the value because recreation sports of new jobs in our area. we want to make sure people are having access to the recreational businesses. so what i'm saying is, i am sure every day you have to make decisions about these issues, backlog versus the road for asking whether you consider the impact that that maintenance backlog has on recreational areas where such a big part of anti-come in an area. >> we do and it's one of the reasons why we sit down not only with the communities but local officials and the public to be able to find solutions to this problem. the majority of our roads budget goes to maintenance. we are proposing to spend $6 million on some new roads. i will be glad to provide for

the record where those roads will be located and the purpose of those roads to be able to reduce and firemen to their backs and provide access for the public. >> i appreciate that. if we do dialogue about the mount baker said choice the city with the committee that would be helpful. thank you. >> chief, i just have a couple of quick, hopefully they are quick questions for you. the first relates to aviation resources and coordination with the state. back in the summer we receive testimony from national association of state foresters that during the 2015 fire season, because of some new federal rules unite u.s. forest service dispatchers declined to call of state aircraft for fires on federal land even when the state aircraft might have been closest to the fire start. we talk a lot about the issues of karting and different standards for aircraft used in

fire suppression. can you give me a quick update on the aircraft carting issues and progress on the coordination then between forest service department of interior and the states so the window we've got one system out there that recognizes aviation standards as the equal and accepted by all? >> madam chair can we are working with the states to be able to come up with that one standard. we operate about, at least 300-400 helicopters and dozens of contracted aircraft. that all deleted this one standard that the forest service has. that being said, not all the states do. we want to ideally get to the point where there's just one standard so that it makes it easier for us to be able to use resources that could also ensures that level of safety at our pilots are looking for. >> do you think you can do that relatively quickly?

how long of a process visit? because again as we heard in the committee here there's nothing that frustrates people more than knowing you've got any meet issue right there. you know exactly what has happened and yet you are stuck because somebody doesn't have the proper authorization. >> is going to take some time. i don't think -- >> light-years? >> get me. a lot of it will depend on reporters on the states, on the willingness to be able to come together on one standard. >> if there's anything we can do to help facilitate the conversation so that we can make it up more like i think that the recorded interest in doing that. let me go to an issue in southeastern alaska. this relates to shiatika and cuba called land deal. this is a situation where there were in holdings within

admiralty island for shiatika native corporation, and what has been going on is there's been a long protracted situation, ever for appraisal of the lands. that was accomplished last october but it was accepted by forest service and shiatika. that appraisal now expires connect over unless there's a purchase option agreement that signed locking in the appraisal price. what we've recently learned is that there's new staff at forest service to think that an environmental site assessment that was conducted prior to the appraisal is no longer valid. and needs to be redone. so that would completely pull the rug out from under all the progress that has been made in the effort for shiatika again to get this included. so i would ask you to look into this issue and determine whether

the reassessment needs to be redone by whether it can simply be updated. we would really like some assistance in just making sure that there's a process that is smooth on this. and also if you look into the issue of this split ownership of the coastal land with regards to content are again a local but it's one that's been outstanding and seems me there's no reason that we can't get this resolved. >> we are going to move forward. we do need to update that environmental study assessment, which is relatively quick and easy thing to do. we will be able to get that done this spring can be able to move forward and get a purchase option. it's my expectation that we will be, i will be asking for help for us to be up to quickly complete that purchase that we've been working on this for many years. >> yes, we have. >> we want to make sure we get along in this year so we can quickly move forward to be able

to complete that purchase. >> and recognized that appraisal expires connect over we have a pretty tight timeline. >> that's why we have to get a purchase option in place, get the study completed and move forward to start acquiring the lands with the money that we currently have, plus we are requesting in fy '17. >> let's work closely with you on the. two very quick ones here. what are the forest service plans offering new opportunities for tourism affirms and wildlife bids to gain new or additional days for services in region 10, both in tongass and -- we've received so many complaints in my office about the lack of new opportunities, no solicitation, open periods. and so you've got new operators that would love to come in and gain some use of days. can determine whether or not there's going to be any new

solicitations in either 16 or 17? >> i'll have to get back to you. i know we're going to move forward with some on the tongass budget point is well taken that this is the sort of thing we need people to find ways to make it easier and to be able to expand those operations so the more people can get out there and also it creates more jobs. >> if you can look into that and it goes back to a point i made earlier with regards to our request to forest service last year, on the recreational dollars that come from forest service. alaska has taken disproportionate reductions in funding over the years but you were directed to correct and address that. we haven't seen where that has been remedied, and i would like an update on that as well. my final question for you this morning is secure rural schools. we were told that the payments

through the extension that we did last year, the payment was supposed to go up to the states last month for distribution. and i'm hearing now that the payments may be delayed. can you give me any update to that as twin communities might expect to see their or as payment payment should go out no later than next week. >> okay. and it will be as advertised if you will? >> yes. we did have some discussion on whether these, these payments would be subject to sequestration and the determination wasn't that they are not. >> that will be welcome news. >> took a little while to get there but that could delay things that few weeks. we are now ready to move forward. >> we will know that's another area, i know we have looked to how we're going to do with srs, and begin making sure that these communities that are so reliant on these dollars are able to

provide for some planning. >> i just want to say thank you because that's onboard to these communities. i'm sure they will be very anxious to tha the news this mog in getting this revved up to them. as i mentioned tamimi a county but there's so many countries depend on the. i'm also eagerly awaiting the outcome on the small business set aside will make it. i'm not asking you to make comment other than we're looking forward to seeing your comments on that. i know my colleagues also asked about the ymca permit process, you in the stages of finalizing fat. that will be very, very important and i appreciate how much you've worked with them in the interim time since we first brought this up in the committee. so we will look forward to the details of how the process works. so thank you, madam chair. >> thank you for bring up that last point on the set aside. you and i had worked that letter some time ago. i just last october. but we are still waiting on

that. it's not just a response to that letter. it was back in 13 that we had assurances that we would see something to correct the problem. in 14 congress are urged the forest service to address this in a probe spill. and in 15 we directed forest service to act within our interior approach you with a stewardship contracting. so i would certainly hope that we would have some form of communication back from you in terms of where this is and why it hasn't been addressed. so if you could get that does we will appreciate it. >> will provide the committee on the progress we working to with small business administration on that. >> thank you. chief, thank you for being here this morning. thank you all your responses to the questions from all of us, and take you for your work. we appreciate it.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

.. >> is linear since the fcc decided to book the internet the internet as a public utility. next a discussion and vote on privacy rules for the internet. jim holbert is the privacy and cybersecurity layer. mr. halper, what exactly will

the fcc being discussed? what is the issue? just go for many the federal fate commission was the entity responsible for enforcement of privacy on the internet and by virtue of the net neutrality order, the fcc has changed that because it is classified internet access providers as common carriers effectively in order to put forward the rule and that create a void where the fcc -- fcc can no longer regulate that one aspect or a telecommunications service provider aspect of the business of internet that backed providers. there is now a rule-making coming up where the fcc will decide what to put in place in lou dobbs or perhaps replicating the rules under the new fcc

authority. >> host: john simpson of consumer watchdog, do support the fact the federal communications commission made me do some rule-making? >> guest: they've got to do it under the law. once they reclassify the isp or broadband internet providers as common carriers, like the telephone company, that meant that their regulations had to apply and their specific privacy regulation that relate to the data tickets gathered over the network by the provider. they have to do it. the question is most of the rules that it is existed in the world of telephone. not that they've extended by reclassification, the situation to cover isps have to come up with rules that were appropriate

to the world over the internet did not just telephones. that is what this is about. >> host: do you support this rulemaking process and what should be in the here and >> guest: i agree with john that there is confusion right now as to what privacy rules apply and it makes sense for the fcc to move forward and described what rules it is going to apply in greater detail. in terms of what should be in that role i think is really the key question with which we will be discussing today, there is considerable disagreement. one can take the view that the internet ecosystem is one whole entity, that is a particular player and not, but fundamentally in the world of advertising, for example, isps

are a very small player in the market right now and there ought to be one set of rules if a consumer has an apple iphone, they don't expect a different set of rules to apply to the internet connection that they receive ban would apply to the operating system that sees all the traffic going across that found for any apps on the phone. there's an argument for consistency. >> guest: that's not exactly right. precisely what kind of regulatory authority does the federal trade commission, did it have in the past? the fact of the matter is about all they could do us under what is known as section five violation which is an unfair and deceptive this. so that basically meant if a company said they were doing something with your information in the privacy policy and tr