Farm bill would reauthorize forestry stewardship contracts
November 06, 2013 | 04:48 PM
To the many deadlines facing farm bill conferees, add U.S. Forest Service stewardship contracting authority, which will sunset on January 15 if no action is taken.
At a hearing on the impact of Forest Service budget cuts on forest fires, Senate Agriculture Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bennet, D-Colo., noted that the farm bill would provide the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management permanent authority to enter into the contracts under which the cost of services such as pre-commercial thinning, trail maintenance, and fuel reduction may be offset by the value of vegetative material removed and may not return revenues to the U.S. Treasury.
Chris Topik, director of the Restoring America’s Forest Programs at the Nature Conservancy, said in his testimony that the provision “is a vital and necessary step to enhance forest management and efficiency.”
“Stewardship contracts are the only administrative tool that can ensure up to 10 year supplies of timber, a level of certainty that encourages job creation and long-term industry investment,” Topik said.
“Permanent authorization is urgently needed to provide surety for contractors and communities and to ensure that the [Forest Service] and BLM retain this important protactive tool to addrss our daunting forest restoration needs.”
Most of the hearing was devoted to the impact of the tight budgets and the Forest Service’s need to “borrow” money from other accounts to fight fires.
Bennet noted that the increased number of big forest fires have been hurting rural economies and the Forest Service’s long term mission to keep forests healthy.
“These escalating costs have caused the Forest Service to routinely borrow money from other programs — like trail maintenance and timber contracting — so they can continue to fight fires,” he said.
But Bennet said that spending money on hazardous fuel reduction and common-sense forest health projects can save the taxpayers from far costlier suppression and recovery spending down the road.
“One Congressional Budget Office study found that for every dollar the federal government invests fire mitigation and prevention, we save over $5 by avoiding future costs associated with catastrophic wildfires.”
Jim Hubbard, the deputy chief of the Forest Service, said forest fires have increased because “our seasons are for sure more complex than they used to be. Temperatures are higher, humidity lower.”
The Forest Service is still able to control 97 to 98 percent of fires “with initial attacks,” he said, but 2 percent of fires are “not controlled and are becoming more difficult to deal with”
The Forest Service lost 34 firefighters fighting those fires this year, he noted.
The forest landscape, he added, “is out of balance in terms of insects and climate” and need treatment, but budget cuts have forced the Forest Service to cut back on the number of acres it can treat from one million to 685,000 acres.
Davey Pritcher, president and CEO of the Wolf Creek Ski Area in Pagosa Springs, Colo., said he has found the Forest Service is more focused when fighting a fire than when it has to address long-term problems such as fighting the spruce bark beetle.
Topik suggested that perhaps declaring the need for hazardous fuel reduction and forest health projects to be an emergency might make it easier to get funding.
Tom Trozel, executive director of the Intermountain Forest Association in Rapid City, S.D., noted that “No other federal agency is required to fund emergency response out of operating funds.”
He also said that harvesting timber plays a role in forest restoration.
Trozel commended the Obama administration for increasing timber outputs but said that “analysis paralysis” and litigation have reduced the number of board feet harvested.
At a hearing on the impact of Forest Service budget cuts on forest fires, Senate Agriculture Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bennet, D-Colo., noted that the farm bill would provide the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management permanent authority to enter into the contracts under which the cost of services such as pre-commercial thinning, trail maintenance, and fuel reduction may be offset by the value of vegetative material removed and may not return revenues to the U.S. Treasury.
Chris Topik, director of the Restoring America’s Forest Programs at the Nature Conservancy, said in his testimony that the provision “is a vital and necessary step to enhance forest management and efficiency.”
“Stewardship contracts are the only administrative tool that can ensure up to 10 year supplies of timber, a level of certainty that encourages job creation and long-term industry investment,” Topik said.
“Permanent authorization is urgently needed to provide surety for contractors and communities and to ensure that the [Forest Service] and BLM retain this important protactive tool to addrss our daunting forest restoration needs.”
Most of the hearing was devoted to the impact of the tight budgets and the Forest Service’s need to “borrow” money from other accounts to fight fires.
Bennet noted that the increased number of big forest fires have been hurting rural economies and the Forest Service’s long term mission to keep forests healthy.
“These escalating costs have caused the Forest Service to routinely borrow money from other programs — like trail maintenance and timber contracting — so they can continue to fight fires,” he said.
But Bennet said that spending money on hazardous fuel reduction and common-sense forest health projects can save the taxpayers from far costlier suppression and recovery spending down the road.
“One Congressional Budget Office study found that for every dollar the federal government invests fire mitigation and prevention, we save over $5 by avoiding future costs associated with catastrophic wildfires.”
Jim Hubbard, the deputy chief of the Forest Service, said forest fires have increased because “our seasons are for sure more complex than they used to be. Temperatures are higher, humidity lower.”
The Forest Service is still able to control 97 to 98 percent of fires “with initial attacks,” he said, but 2 percent of fires are “not controlled and are becoming more difficult to deal with”
The Forest Service lost 34 firefighters fighting those fires this year, he noted.
The forest landscape, he added, “is out of balance in terms of insects and climate” and need treatment, but budget cuts have forced the Forest Service to cut back on the number of acres it can treat from one million to 685,000 acres.
Davey Pritcher, president and CEO of the Wolf Creek Ski Area in Pagosa Springs, Colo., said he has found the Forest Service is more focused when fighting a fire than when it has to address long-term problems such as fighting the spruce bark beetle.
Topik suggested that perhaps declaring the need for hazardous fuel reduction and forest health projects to be an emergency might make it easier to get funding.
Tom Trozel, executive director of the Intermountain Forest Association in Rapid City, S.D., noted that “No other federal agency is required to fund emergency response out of operating funds.”
He also said that harvesting timber plays a role in forest restoration.
Trozel commended the Obama administration for increasing timber outputs but said that “analysis paralysis” and litigation have reduced the number of board feet harvested.
