[Senate Report 110-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 802
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-370
======================================================================
FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION ACT
_______
June 16, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2593]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2593) to establish a program at the
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to carry out
collaborative ecological restoration treatments for priority
forest landscapes on public land, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Forest Landscape Restoration Act of
2008''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to encourage the collaborative, science-
based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes through a
process that--
(1) encourages ecological, economic, and social
sustainability;
(2) leverages local resources with national and private
resources;
(3) facilitates the reduction of wildfire management costs,
including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and
reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; and
(4) demonstrates the degree to which--
(A) various ecological restoration techniques--
(i) achieve ecological and watershed health
objectives; and
(ii) affect wildfire activity and management
costs; and
(B) the use of forest restoration byproducts can
offset treatment costs while benefitting local rural
economies and improving forest health.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Fund established by section 4(f).
(2) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program established under section
4(a).
(3) Proposal.--The term ``proposal'' means a collaborative
forest landscape restoration proposal described in section
4(b).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service.
(5) Strategy.--The term ``strategy'' means a landscape
restoration strategy described in section 4(b)(1).
SEC. 4. COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior, shall establish a Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program to select and fund ecological restoration
treatments for priority forest landscapes in accordance with--
(1) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
(2) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.); and
(3) any other applicable law.
(b) Eligibility Criteria.--To be eligible for nomination under
subsection (c), a collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal
shall--
(1) be based on a landscape restoration strategy that--
(A) is complete or substantially complete;
(B) identifies and prioritizes ecological restoration
treatments for a 10-year period within a landscape that
is--
(i) at least 50,000 acres;
(ii) comprised primarily of forested National
Forest System land, but may also include land
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management, land under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, or other Federal,
State, tribal, or private land;
(iii) in need of active ecosystem
restoration; and
(iv) accessible by existing or proposed wood-
processing infrastructure at an appropriate
scale to use woody biomass and small-diameter
wood removed in ecological restoration
treatments;
(C) incorporates the best available science and
scientific application tools in ecological restoration
strategies;
(D) fully maintains, or contributes toward the
restoration of, the structure and composition of old
growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old
growth conditions characteristic of the forest type,
taking into account the contribution of the stand to
landscape fire adaptation and watershed health and
retaining the large trees contributing to old growth
structure;
(E) would carry out any forest restoration treatments
that reduce hazardous fuels by--
(i) focusing on small diameter trees,
thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and fire use
to modify fire behavior, as measured by the
projected reduction of uncharacteristically
severe wildfire effects for the forest type
(such as adverse soil impacts, tree mortality
or other impacts); and
(ii) maximizing the retention of large trees,
as appropriate for the forest type, to the
extent that the trees promote fire-resilient
stands; and
(F)(i) does not include the establishment of
permanent roads; and
(ii) would commit funding to decommission all
temporary roads constructed to carry out the strategy;
(2) be developed and implemented through a collaborative
process that--
(A) includes multiple interested persons representing
diverse interests; and
(B)(i) is transparent and nonexclusive; or
(ii) meets the requirements for a resource advisory
committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section
205 of Public Law 106-393 (16 U.S.C. 500 note);
(3) describe plans to--
(A) reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire,
including through the use of fire for ecological
restoration and maintenance and reestablishing natural
fire regimes, where appropriate;
(B) improve fish and wildlife habitat, including for
endangered, threatened, and sensitive species;
(C) maintain or improve water quality and watershed
function;
(D) prevent, remediate, or control invasions of
exotic species;
(E) maintain, decommission, and rehabilitate roads
and trails;
(F) use woody biomass and small-diameter trees
produced from projects implementing the strategy;
(G) report annually on performance, including through
performance measures from the plan entitled the ``10
Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan'' and
dated December 2006; and
(H) take into account any applicable community
wildfire protection plan;
(4) analyze any anticipated cost savings, including those
resulting from--
(A) reduced wildfire management costs; and
(B) a decrease in the unit costs of implementing
ecological restoration treatments over time;
(5) estimate--
(A) the annual Federal funding necessary to implement
the proposal; and
(B) the amount of new non-Federal investment for
carrying out the proposal that would be leveraged;
(6) describe the collaborative process through which the
proposal was developed, including a description of--
(A) participation by or consultation with State,
local, and Tribal governments; and
(B) any established record of successful
collaborative planning and implementation of ecological
restoration projects on National Forest System land and
other land included in the proposal by the
collaborators; and
(7) benefit local economies by providing local employment or
training opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements
for restoration planning, design, implementation, or monitoring
with--
(A) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative
entities;
(B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related
partnerships, with State, local, and non-profit youth
groups;
(C) existing or proposed small or micro-businesses,
clusters, or incubators; or
(D) other entities that will hire or train local
people to complete such contracts, grants, or
agreements; and
(8) be subject to any other requirements that the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines
to be necessary for the efficient and effective administration
of the program.
(c) Nomination Process.--
(1) Submission.--A proposal shall be submitted to--
(A) the appropriate Regional Forester; and
(B) if actions under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior are proposed, the
appropriate--
(i) State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
(ii) Regional Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs; or
(iii) other official of the Department of the
Interior.
(2) Nomination.--
(A) In general.--A Regional Forester may nominate for
selection by the Secretary any proposals that meet the
eligibility criteria established by subsection (b).
(B) Concurrence.--Any proposal nominated by the
Regional Forester that proposes actions under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior shall
include the concurrence of the appropriate--
(i) State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
(ii) Regional Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs; or
(iii) other official of the Department of the
Interior.
(3) Documentation.--With respect to each proposal that is
nominated under paragraph (2)--
(A) the appropriate Regional Forester shall--
(i) include a plan to use Federal funds
allocated to the region to fund those costs of
planning and carrying out ecological
restoration treatments on National Forest
System land, consistent with the strategy, that
would not be covered by amounts transferred to
the Secretary from the Fund; and
(ii) provide evidence that amounts proposed
to be transferred to the Secretary from the
Fund during the first 2 fiscal years following
selection would be used to carry out ecological
restoration treatments consistent with the
strategy during the same fiscal year in which
the funds are transferred to the Secretary;
(B) if actions under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior are proposed, the nomination
shall include a plan to fund such actions, consistent
with the strategy, by the appropriate--
(i) State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management;
(ii) Regional Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs; or
(iii) other official of the Department of the
Interior; and
(C) if actions on land not under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior are
proposed, the appropriate Regional Forester shall
provide evidence that the landowner intends to
participate in, and provide appropriate funding to
carry out, the actions.
(d) Selection Process.--
(1) In general.--After consulting with the advisory panel
established under subsection (e), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall, subject
to paragraph (2), select the best proposals that--
(A) have been nominated under subsection (c)(2); and
(B) meet the eligibility criteria established by
subsection (b).
(2) Criteria.--In selecting proposals under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall give special consideration to--
(A) the strength of the proposal and strategy;
(B) the strength of the ecological case of the
proposal and the proposed ecological restoration
strategies;
(C) the strength of the collaborative process and the
likelihood of successful collaboration throughout
implementation;
(D) whether the proposal is likely to achieve
reductions in long-term wildfire management costs;
(E) whether the proposal would reduce the relative
costs of carrying out ecological restoration treatments
as a result of the use of woody biomass and small-
diameter trees; and
(F) whether an appropriate level of non-Federal
investment would be leveraged in carrying out the
proposal.
(3) Limitation.--The Secretary may select not more than--
(A) 10 proposals to be funded during any fiscal year;
(B) 2 proposals in any 1 region of the National
Forest System to be funded during any fiscal year; and
(C) the number of proposals that the Secretary
determines are likely to receive adequate funding.
(e) Advisory Panel.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and maintain
an advisory panel comprised of not more than 15 members to
evaluate, and provide recommendations on, each proposal that
has been nominated under subsection (c)(2).
(2) Representation.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
membership of the advisory panel is fairly balanced in terms of
the points of view represented and the functions to be
performed by the advisory panel.
(3) Inclusion.--The advisory panel shall include experts in
ecological restoration, fire ecology, fire management, rural
economic development, strategies for ecological adaptation to
climate change, fish and wildlife ecology, and woody biomass
and small-diameter tree utilization.
(f) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund, to be known as the ``Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Fund'', 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 for each
proposal selected to be carried out under subsection (d).
(2) Inclusion.--The cost of carrying out ecological
restoration treatments as provided in paragraph (1) may, as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate, include cancellation
and termination costs required to be obligated for contracts to
carry out ecological restoration treatments on National Forest
System land for each proposal selected to be carried out under
subsection (d).
(3) Contents.--The Fund shall consist of such amounts as are
appropriated to the Fund under paragraph (6).
(4) Expenditures from fund.--
(A) In general.--On request by the Secretary, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the Fund
to the Secretary such amounts as the Secretary
determines are appropriate, in accordance with
paragraph (1).
(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not expend money
from the Fund on any 1 proposal--
(i) during a period of more than 10 fiscal
years; or
(ii) in excess of $4,000,000 in any 1 fiscal
year.
(5) Accounting and reporting system.--The Secretary shall
establish an accounting and reporting system for the Fund.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Fund $40,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019, to remain available until expended.
(g) Program Implementation and Monitoring.--
(1) Work plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which a proposal is selected to be carried out, the Secretary
shall create, in collaboration with the interested persons, an
implementation work plan and budget to implement the proposal
that includes--
(A) a description of the manner in which the proposal
would be implemented to achieve ecological and
community economic benefit, including capacity building
to accomplish restoration;
(B) a business plan that addresses--
(i) the anticipated unit treatment cost
reductions over 10 years;
(ii) the anticipated costs for infrastructure
needed for the proposal;
(iii) the projected sustainability of the
supply of woody biomass and small-diameter
trees removed in ecological restoration
treatments; and
(iv) the projected local economic benefits of
the proposal; and
(C) documentation of the non-Federal investment in
the priority landscape, including the sources and uses
of the investments; and
(D) a plan to decommission any temporary roads
established to carry out the proposal.
(2) Project implementation.--Amounts transferred to the
Secretary from the Fund shall be used to carry out ecological
restoration treatments that are--
(A) consistent with the proposal and strategy; and
(B) identified through the collaborative process
described in subsection (b)(2).
(3) Annual report.--The Secretary, in collaboration with the
Secretary of the Interior and interested persons, shall prepare
an annual report on the accomplishments of each selected
proposal that includes--
(A) a description of all acres (or other appropriate
unit) treated and restored through projects
implementing the strategy;
(B) an evaluation of progress, including performance
measures and how prior year evaluations have
contributed to improved project performance;
(C) a description of community benefits achieved,
including any local economic benefits;
(D) the results of the multiparty monitoring,
evaluation, and accountability process under paragraph
(4); and
(E) a summary of the costs of--
(i) treatments; and
(ii) relevant fire management activities.
(4) Multiparty monitoring.--The Secretary shall, in
collaboration with the Secretary of the Interior and interested
persons, use a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and
accountability process to assess the positive or negative
ecological, social, and economic effects of projects
implementing a selected proposal for not less than 15 years
after project implementation commences.
(h) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the first fiscal year in
which funding is made available to carry out ecological restoration
projects under the program, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall
submit a report on the program, including an assessment of whether, and
to what extent, the program is fulfilling the purposes of this Act,
to--
(1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate;
(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(3) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
(4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior such
sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 2593, the Forest Landscape Restoration
Act, is to establish a program at the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior to select, fund, and carry out
landscape-scale restoration projects on National Forests and
other land through a process that encourages collaboration,
relies on the best available science, facilitates local
economic development, and leverages local funds with national
and private funding.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
On September 8, 2000, the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture issued a report to the President that became known
as the ``National Fire Plan.'' One of the goals of that plan
was to restore landscapes by working collaboratively with
communities to develop and implement forest restoration
projects and to utilize the restoration byproducts to foster
local economic development. Since 2000, the scientific,
economic, and social interest in landscape-scale forest
restoration has grown significantly.
Landscape-scale restoration is important for a number of
reasons. First, particularly in forest-types historically
characterized by frequent, low-intensity wildfires, landscape-
scale restoration is a key to controlling unnaturally intense
wildfire behavior and, as a result, wildfire suppression costs.
Wildland fire appropriations nearly quadrupled between 1996 and
2005, and they continue to grow. In both of fiscal years 2006
and 2007, the Federal agencies spent nearly $2 billion on
wildfire suppression. By depriving wildfires of unnatural
accumulations of fuel, restoration treatments can significantly
reduce the intensity and increase the manageability of
wildfires, which translates into reduced fire-suppression
costs.
Second, landscape-scale treatments are seen as necessary
for restoring the health of forest ecosystems that have been
impaired by fire-suppression and land uses that permitted
unnatural accumulations of vegetation. Many landscapes in such
forests also are threatened by invasive species, deteriorating
road and trail systems, and climate change, for example. In
such cases, a strategic, landscape restoration approach often
is necessary not only to reduce the risks of unnaturally
intense and frequent wildfires, but also to restore watershed
function, fish and wildlife habitat, and general ecosystem
health.
Finally, landscape-scale restoration is an important
component of successful economic utilization of small-diameter
trees and woody biomass. Large-scale forest restoration efforts
can help to provide economies-of-scale, and long-term efforts
can help to provide entrepreneurs with the confidence that
encourages initiative and investment. Economic utilization of
such byproducts can, in turn, help to defray the costs of
restoration.
Despite the importance of landscape-scale restoration and
its ecological, fiscal, and economic benefits, it remains
largely untested (at least as contemplated by S. 2593).
Weaknesses in planning and prioritizing restoration treatments
have discouraged true landscape-scale restoration. In addition,
the large costs associated with landscape-scale restoration
efforts make them extremely difficult to fit within local or
regional agency budgets. A December 2004 report of the Western
Governors' Association captured these concerns by highlighting
``the need for a landscape-level vision for restoration of
forests'', along with a ``strong call for improved
collaboration'', ``committed long-term funding'', improved
``monitoring of accomplishments'', and ``promoting fire as a
management tool''.
S. 2593 responds to these challenges by establishing a
collaborative process that relies on the best-available science
to plan and prioritize landscape restoration efforts on
National Forests and other lands. It also establishes a
competitive, long-term funding mechanism that supplements local
resources and encourages non-Federal support in carrying out
priority landscape restoration efforts.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Feinstein, and others
introduced S. 2593 on February 5, 2008. The Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests held a hearing on S. 2593 on April 1,
2008. At its business meeting on May 7, 2008, the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2593 favorably
reported, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an
open business session on May 7, 2008, by voice vote of a quorum
present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 2593, if amended as
described herein.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
During its consideration of S. 2593, the Committee adopted
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment
clarifies and emphasizes the role of the Secretary of the
Interior in the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program, a reflection of the importance of collaboration among
the Forest Service and other agencies within the Department of
the Interior in developing, considering, selecting, and
implementing collaborative forest landscape restoration
proposals. The amendment mandates a single panel to advise the
Secretaries during the selection process instead of authorizing
both a scientific and technical advisory panel. Also, included
in the amendment is language requiring funding to decommission
temporary roads, underscoring the importance of watershed
health and improving watershed function as part of landscape
restoration, clarifying the role of successfully pre-
established collaboration in the eligibility criteria,
emphasizing local economic development, expanding the uses of
the Fund to include monitoring and certain contracting costs,
and making other technical and conforming improvements. The
amendment is described in detail in the section-by-section
analysis below.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 contains the short title of the bill.
Section 2 states the purpose of the bill.
Section 3 provides the definitions for the bill.
Section 4(a) directs the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior, to establish the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program (``Program'') to select
and fund ecological restoration treatments for priority forest
landscapes. Subsection (a) also clarifies that the restoration
treatments are to be carried out in accordance with applicable
law, including appropriate National Environmental Policy Act
evaluation of specific projects that are proposed by Federal
agencies to implement those collaborative forest landscape
restoration proposals that are selected by the Secretary.
Subsection (b) establishes the criteria that a
collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal
(``proposal'') must meet to be eligible for nomination by the
Regional Forester for selection and funding through the
Program.
Paragraph (1) describes the landscape restoration strategy
(``strategy'') that forms the foundation for the proposal and,
ultimately, for the strategic implementation of restoration
projects across the covered landscape.
Subparagraph (A) provides that the strategy must be
complete or substantially complete when the proposal is
submitted so agency decision-makers and advisors have
sufficient information on which to base their nominating and
selection decisions and so managers have concrete guidance to
implement the proposal if it is selected. At the same time,
this provision leaves sufficient flexibility to improve the
strategy over time (e.g., through feedback during the
nomination and selection processes and through adaptive
management during implementation).
Subparagraph (B) provides that the strategy must identify
and prioritize proposed ecological restoration treatments
within a landscape for a 10-year period. Actual restoration of
the landscape may require more than 10 years of effort (as
would monitoring and maintenance), but the bill contemplates no
more than 10 years of funding through the Program.
Clause (i) requires the landscape to consist of at least
50,000 acres. The strategy may call for active restoration
treatment of only a portion of those acres. Ultimately, the
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that restoration
occurs at a sufficient scale to appreciably improve wildfire
behavior and management costs, to restore natural ecosystem and
watershed functions, and to facilitate appropriate utilization
of woody biomass and small-diameter wood.
Clause (ii) requires the landscape to be composed primarily
of forested National Forest System land, though it also makes
clear that other land ownerships and types may be included.
Clause (iii) requires that the landscape be in need of
active ecosystem restoration. This clause calls for an
ecological justification and approach to landscape restoration,
again recognizing that it may be that only a portion of the
landscape needs to be actively restored to appreciably improve
landscape-scale ecosystem and watershed function.
Clause (iv) requires the landscape to be accessible by
existing or proposed wood-processing infrastructure at an
appropriate scale to use woody biomass and small-diameter wood
removed in ecological restoration treatments. This provision
recognizes that economic utilization of ecological restoration
byproducts is a critical element of the program, while at the
same time making clear that the Program is not intended to
encourage the development of wood utilization infrastructure at
a scale that would adversely affect the long-term ecological
sustainability of the area. This provision also makes clear
that communities that currently do not have appropriate
infrastructure are not disadvantaged, as they may propose new
infrastructure to use woody biomass and small-diameter wood
that is removed in ecological restoration treatments to fully
satisfy this requirement. At the same time, this provision is
not intended to disadvantage communities merely because they
have existing infrastructure capacity that may surpass the
scale necessary to implement the proposal, as the proposal may
rely on using a portion of that capacity to carry out the
proposal.
Subparagraph (C) requires the strategy to incorporate the
best available science and scientific application tools (such
as vegetation and fuels models) in ecological restoration
strategies. To a considerable degree, landscape restoration
remains experimental, and this provision emphasizes the
critical role of science in directing the restoration.
Subparagraph (D) requires the strategy to incorporate (and
projects to comply with) specific direction for retaining and
restoring old-growth stands.
Subparagraph (E) provides specific direction for the
strategy and project implementation requiring hazardous fuels
reduction to focus on small diameter trees, thinning, strategic
fuel breaks, and fire use, and to maximize the retention of
large trees, as appropriate for the forest type and to the
extent that the trees promote fire-resilient stands.
Subparagraph (F) prohibits establishing permanent roads as
part of the restoration strategy or project implementation and
requires a commitment to fund the decommissioning of all
temporary roads constructed to carry out the strategy. This
provision does not preclude maintaining or reconstructing
existing roads as part of the strategy, as doing so may have
significant watershed, ecological, and fire management
benefits. It is the Committee's understanding that existing
Forest Service policy requires temporary roads to be
decommissioned by the conclusion of the contract, permit,
lease, or other document that authorizes the restoration
activity, and the requirement in clause (ii) reflects that
policy.
Paragraph (2) requires that each proposal be developed and
implemented through a collaborative process that meets the
specified requirements. A resource advisory committee that
meets the appointment, composition, majority vote, and other
requirements of the specified subsections of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 106-393)
would satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), regardless
of whether the specific authorities of that Act have expired.
Such resource advisory committees have fostered successful
collaboration in the context of National Forest restoration
projects, and this provision recognizes that they may
appropriately play a long-term role through the Program. There
is no requirement that the Forest Service or other Federal
agencies participate in developing the proposal (though such
participation certainly is appropriate, and it likely would
strengthen the proposal and significantly increase the chances
of nomination, selection, and effective implementation).
Paragraph (3) requires the proposal to specifically
describe plans to accomplish some of the key goals of the
Program, if selected, including plans to (A) reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire and, where appropriate, to
reestablish natural fire regimes through the use of fire
(prescribed and wildland fire use), (B) improve fish and
wildlife habitat, (C) maintain or improve water quality and
watershed function, (D) respond to invasive species, (E)
maintain, decommission, and rehabilitate roads and trails, (F)
use woody biomass and small-diameter trees, (G) report annually
on implementation performance, and (H) consider applicable
community wildfire protection plans.
Paragraph (4) requires the proposal to include an analysis
of any anticipated cost savings, including (but not necessarily
limited to) those resulting from reduced wildfire management
costs and any decrease in the unit costs of implementing
ecological restoration treatments over time. The latter
provision's reference to ``unit costs'' recognizes that the
most appropriate unit of measurement may not be cost-per-acre-
treated and will vary with the circumstances.
Paragraph (5) requires the proposal to estimate the annual
Federal funding necessary to implement the proposal and the
amount of new non-Federal investment for carrying out the
proposal that would be leveraged (e.g., financial or in-kind
contributions from foundations and other non-governmental
organizations, State government, and private investors).
Paragraph (6) requires the proposal to include a
description of the collaborative process through which the
proposal was developed. Subparagraph (A) emphasizes the
importance of including--or at least consulting with--
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments.
Subparagraph (B) requires a description of whether the
collaborative group has an established record of successful
planning and implementation of ecological restoration projects
with the Forest Service and other relevant land managers. A
strong track-record is an important indicator of a functional
collaborative process and that the proposal is relatively
likely to be carried out effectively and efficiently if
selected.
Paragraph (7) requires the proposal to benefit local
economies by providing certain local employment or training
opportunities. Specifically, the proposal must generate local
economic opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements
for restoration planning, design, implementation, or monitoring
with certain local parties, including youth corps, small
businesses (as defined by the Small Business Administration),
micro-businesses, business clusters, or business incubators.
Although proposals cannot pre-determine the Federal agencies'
ultimate decisions regarding how, when, and with whom
contracts, grants, and agreements would be made if the proposal
is selected, the proposal can and must demonstrate that
selection and implementation of the proposal would provide
``opportunities'' for local economic development, and it should
describe how local interests are prepared to pursue those
opportunities. There also may be opportunities to demonstrate
that the proposal will benefit the local economy as a result of
existing relationships with the Forest Service and other
Federal agencies or with non-Federal parties.
Paragraph (8) states that the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior, may call for proposals to
include additional information or to meet other requirements
that are necessary for the efficient and effective
administration of the Program.
Subsection (c) describes the nomination process for
proposals. The bill leaves much of the nomination process to
the Secretaries' discretion. It is important to the integrity
of the Program, however, that the nomination process be fair
and transparent with meaningful consideration and careful,
competitive selection. Nothing in this subsection precludes the
Regional Forester (and other appropriate officials) from
establishing a formal or informal pre-proposal process that
facilitates the submission of strong proposals with broad
support. Analogous programs have benefited significantly from
such a process, and they certainly would be within the spirit
of the bill.
Paragraph (1) states that each proposal must be submitted
to the Regional Forester for consideration. If actions under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior are proposed,
the proposal also must be submitted to the appropriate official
of the Department of the Interior.
Paragraph (2) states that the Regional Forester may
nominate proposals for consideration and potential selection by
the Secretary. If actions under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior are proposed, the appropriate
official of the Department of the Interior must concur in the
nomination.
Paragraph (3) requires certain documentation for each
proposal that is nominated by the Regional Forester.
Subparagraph (A)(i) requires the Regional Forester to
include a plan to fund the planning and implementation costs of
projects proposed for National Forest System land that would
not be covered by the Fund. This requirement is intended to
ensure that there will be adequate funding to efficiently and
effectively carry out each proposal that is selected. Clause
(ii) requires the Regional Forester to provide evidence that,
during the first two years after selection, money from the Fund
would be used to carry out ecological restoration treatments
during the same fiscal year in which the funds are transferred
to the Secretary. This provision is intended to provide
assurance from the Regional Forester that the Forest Service
has the capacity (e.g., staffing and existing project
decisions) at the local and regional level to promptly begin
on-the-ground restoration projects that are consistent with the
strategy with the funds that are provided.
Subparagraph (B) requires the appropriate official in the
Department of the Interior to include a plan to fund any
actions proposed to be carried out by the Secretary of the
Interior.
Subparagraph (C) requires that if actions on land not under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary or the Secretary of the
Interior are contemplated (e.g. private, State, or other
Federal land), then the Regional Forester must provide evidence
that each owner of such land will support and participate in
the effort.
Subsection (d) describes the selection process for
proposals that have been nominated by the Regional Forester for
consideration by the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior.
Paragraph (1) directs the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and the advisory panels, to
select the best proposals that meet the eligibility criteria
established by subsection (b) and have been nominated pursuant
to subsection (c). Selection of a proposal makes it eligible
for funding through the Program.
Paragraph (2) requires the Secretary to give special
consideration in selecting proposals to six criteria. The six
criteria capture the most important goals of the Program and
are intended to be given great weight. These criteria are not
exclusive, however, and the advisory panels and the Secretary
may rely on additional considerations that further the purposes
of the Program in forming their recommendations and making
selections of the best proposals.
Subparagraph (A) provides the first criterion: the strength
of the landscape restoration proposal and strategy. This
provision requires a general evaluation of the likelihood that
the proposal and the strategy will successfully guide their
implementation in a way that efficiently and effectively
achieves their goals (considering the purposes of the Program
and the eligibility criteria).
Subparagraph (B) provides the second criterion: the
strength of the ecological case of the proposal for landscape
restoration and the proposed ecological restoration strategies.
This requires an ecological evaluation of the need for active
ecological restoration, whether the proposed restoration
strategies are best suited to improve ecosystem and watershed
function, and the degree to which those strategies will improve
ecosystem and watershed function.
Subparagraph (C) provides the third criterion: the strength
of the collaborative process and the likelihood of successful
collaboration throughout implementation. Experience shows that
projects that enjoy strong collaborative support are far less
likely to devolve into controversy and associated appeals and
litigation, and are more likely to be efficiently and
effectively implemented. Elements of strong collaboration in
this context include the degree to which stakeholders
representing the diversity of interested parties are included
in the collaborative process and the extent to which the
collaborators have an established record of successful
collaborative planning and implementation of ecological
restoration projects with the Forest Service and other
participating agencies and entities.
Subparagraph (D) provides the fourth criterion: whether the
proposal is likely to achieve reductions in long-term wildfire
management costs. Reducing wildfire management is a critical
challenge and an important goal of the Program. This criterion
requires a technical evaluation of whether the proposal is
likely to improve wildfire behavior and management. It
recognizes that reductions in wildfire management may not be
achieved over the short-term and that the long-term efforts
that may be necessary to maintain such improvements should be
considered. This criterion is not intended to give varying
weight to proposals based simply on the amount of cost
reduction they would achieve, as the appropriate amount of
reduction will vary based on the circumstances.
Subparagraph (E) provides the fifth criterion: whether the
proposal would reduce the relative costs of carrying out
treatments as a result of the use of woody biomass and small-
diameter trees. Biomass utilization from forest restoration is
an ongoing financial challenge for Federal agencies and an
economic challenge for local communities, and it is an
important element of the Program. This criterion requires
consideration of whether any costs would be reduced as a result
of biomass and small-diameter tree utilization. It is not
intended to give varying weight to proposals based simply on
the amount of cost reduction they would achieve, as different
communities, landscapes, and other circumstances generate
different capacities to produce such reductions and the
appropriate amount of reduction therefore will vary.
Subparagraph (F) provides the sixth criterion: whether an
appropriate level of non-Federal investment would be leveraged
in carrying out the proposal. This provision does not require
any specific level of non-Federal funding (i.e., there is no
required ``match''), and what level is appropriate would depend
on all of the circumstances, including the varying capacities
of different communities.
Paragraph (3) prohibits the Secretary from (A) selecting
more than ten proposals for funding during any given year, (B)
selecting more than two proposals in any single region of the
National Forest System to be funded during any given year, or
(C) selecting more than the number of proposals that the
Secretary believes are likely to receive adequate funding.
These limitations reflect the experimental nature of landscape-
scale restoration, the realities of available funding to carry
out such large projects, and the importance of selecting a
geographically diverse set of proposals. The Committee
anticipates that each selected project will require roughly $2
to $3 million per year from the Fund. That amount, when
combined with the other agency funds, should provide a
realistic sum to carry out a landscape-scale restoration
proposal, while leaving enough money in the Fund to
simultaneously carry out a number of other proposals.
Subparagraph (C) recognizes the importance of adequate and
predictable project funding to the success of the Program
(particularly the economic development component). The
Secretary should use his best judgment considering all of the
relevant factors in making this determination, and should not
rely exclusively on the President's budget proposal.
Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to establish and
maintain an advisory panel to independently evaluate each
proposal that has been nominated and provide recommendations
for selection to the Secretaries based on that evaluation.
Experience has shown that such panels play an important role in
supporting a fair, rigorous, and merit-based competitive
process. In order to control costs, paragraph (1) sets an upper
limit of 15 members. As an advisory committee, the panel will
be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and paragraph
(2) comports with section 5(b) of that Act by requiring the
panel to be fairly balanced. Given the complexity and
experimental nature of landscape-scale restoration, it is
particularly important to have experts aid the Secretaries in
evaluating the proposals (and the strategies on which they are
based), as provided for by the selection criteria. Paragraph
(3) requires the panel to include (though not be limited to) a
number of experts in various specified disciplines that are
necessary to evaluating proposals in light of the most
important purposes of the Program.
Subsection (f) establishes the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Fund, which may be used to pay up to 50
percent of the costs of carrying out and monitoring ecological
restoration treatments on National Forest System land for each
proposal that is selected by the Secretary. The remainder of
the costs of carrying out each proposal on National Forest
System land are to be paid by Regional and local Forest Service
offices (as provided by subsection (c)(3)(A)) through other
appropriations (and leveraged funds, if available). While money
from the Fund only is available for work on National Forest
System land, the Committee notes that the Forest Service has
existing authorities to assist communities and non-Federal
landowners that are interested in participating in the Program
and that additional funding is authorized by subsection (i) to
support these existing authorities and other participating
Federal agencies.
Paragraph (2) provides that the Secretary also is
authorized to use the Fund to cover 50 percent of any
cancellation and termination costs that are required to be
obligated for implementing contracts (as is required for multi-
year contracts under 17.104(c) of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations).
Paragraph (3) provides that the Fund is to consist of up to
$40 million per year that is authorized for appropriation for
up to ten years.
Paragraph (4) provides for the transfer of funds from the
Treasury to the Secretary. The Committee's amendment limits the
Secretary from using money from the Fund to support any
proposal for a period of more than 10 years or in an amount
greater than $4,000,000 in any one year. These provisions
reflect the intent that the Program support each proposal for a
maximum of ten years (though landscape restoration may continue
under other authorities thereafter) and to support a diversity
of proposals. As indicated earlier in this report, the
Committee anticipates that $2 to $3 million per year from the
Fund (which would be combined with at least that much from
other sources) is likely to provide sufficient support for the
proposals that are contemplated.
Paragraph (5) directs the Secretary to establish a
reporting and accounting system for the Fund.
Paragraph (6) authorizes appropriations of $40 million per
year to the Fund through fiscal year 2019.
Subsection (g) establishes a number of requirements for
implementing selected proposals.
Paragraph (1) requires the Secretary, in collaboration with
interested stakeholders (including any other participating
Federal agencies), to develop for each selected proposal an
implementation work plan and budget that includes: (A) a
discussion of how the proposal will be implemented, (B) a
business plan focused on appropriately achieving the economic
sustainability goals of the proposal, (C) information regarding
the non-Federal investments that are expected or have been
committed to the proposal, and (D) a work plan and budget for
decommissioning any temporary roads established to carry out
the proposal. The requirement to develop a work plan and budget
recognizes that many of the details of implementation will be
beyond the scope of the proposal and strategy, but that it will
nevertheless be necessary to plan and document many of those
details at the outset of the implementation phase.
Paragraph (2) requires amounts from the Fund to be used to
carry out ecological restoration treatments in a manner that is
consistent with the landscape restoration proposal and
strategy. Subparagraph (A) ensures that money from the Fund is
used for on-the-ground restoration in a manner that maintains
the integrity of the proposal and strategy, while at the same
time leaving sufficient flexibility to allow adaptive
management. Subparagraph (B) ensures that the collaborative
process maintains a key role in identifying the projects to
implement the proposal and strategy.
Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and interested stakeholders, to
prepare an annual report to be available for Congress and the
general public on the accomplishments of each proposal that has
been selected for funding under the Program.
Paragraph (4) requires the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and interested stakeholders, to
use a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability
process to assess the positive or negative ecological, social,
and economic effects of projects implementing a selected
proposal for not less than 15 years after project
implementation commences. This provision recognizes the
experimental nature of landscape-scale ecological restoration
and the importance of collecting, analyzing, and sharing that
information to advance the underlying goals of the Program. The
Committee's amendment recognizes that while detailed monitoring
of every single project implementing a proposal may be useful,
it may not be realistic in all circumstances and therefore is
not required.
Subsection (h) requires the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior, to submit a report every five
years to the relevant congressional committees assessing
whether, and to what extent, the Program is fulfilling the
purposes of the Act.
Subsection (i) authorizes appropriations to the Secretaries
of the Interior and Agriculture to carry out the bill. The
appropriations authorized to be appropriated to the Fund by
section 4(f)(6) are available for carrying out only a limited
portion of the Program on National Forest System land. This
subsection authorizes appropriations to fund other aspects of
the bill, including, for example, ecological restoration
treatments on land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs, the advisory panel,
community support, and Forest Service regional funding
requirements.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
S. 2593--Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2008
Summary: S. 2593 would establish a collaborative program
between the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to
select and fund ecological restoration projects on certain
forest lands. To fund the program, the bill would create and
authorize appropriations for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Fund.
Based on information from the Forest Service and assuming
appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 2593 would cost $188 million over the 2009-2013
period and approximately $250 million in the years after 2013.
Enacting this bill would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
S. 2593 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 2593 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
--------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level.......................................... 40 40 40 40 40 200
Estimated Outlays............................................ 30 38 40 40 40 188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
2593 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2009 and
that the authorized amounts will be appropriated over the 2009-
2013 period.
S. 2593 would establish a collaborative program between the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to select and fund
ecological restoration projects on certain forest lands. The
projects conducted under the program could involve state,
local, and tribal participants, and projects would, among other
activities, explore ways to reduce the costs of managing
wildland fires by re-establishing natural fire regimes. (A
natural fire regime describes the pattern that fires follow in
particular ecosystems.)
S. 2593 would establish a fund in the Treasury to pay for
up to half of the costs of the projects and would authorize the
appropriation of $40 million a year to the fund over the 2009-
2019 period. The Secretaries currently spend several million
dollars per year managing wildland fires and on programs to
promote healthy forest lands. Under the bill project funding
also could come from local governments or private entities.
Based on information from the Forest Service and assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 2593 would cost $188 million over the 2009-2013
period and approximately $250 million in the years after 2013.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2593
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Tyler Kruzich; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell;
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 2593.
The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of
imposing Government-established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 2593.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
S. 2593 does not contain any congressionally directed
spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The views of the Administration were included in testimony
received by the Committee at a hearing on S. 2593 on April 1,
2008, which is printed below.
Statement of Gail Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture
Thank you for the opportunity today to provide the Forest
Service's view on S. 2593, a bill that would provide for the
establishment of a program to carry out collaborative
ecological restoration treatments on priority forest
landscapes. We support the intent of the bill to work on a
landscape scale, to integrate the best available science, and
to implement proposals through a collaborative process. As
reflected by the inclusion of an ecosystems demonstration
legislative proposal within the President's FY 2009 Budget and
much of our current work, we share this goal. The
Administration's ecosystem demonstration proposal would expand
our ability to bring new partners together with the Forest
Service on landscape-scale projects that restore forests
through market-oriented approaches to stewardship of national
forests.
Both the President's proposal and S. 2593 reflect a
collaborative approach that builds commitment to partnership
and ownership of the results. Each would help different groups
find their common interests and leverages resources to get work
done. Although the Forest Service has been carrying out
restoration work across landscapes under current authorities,
S. 2593 would enhance our current efforts by helping prioritize
landscape-level restoration work. In my testimony, I will give
some background on our current efforts in landscape-level work
and make some general comments on the bill.
We believe there is a need for action to restore the health
of many of the Nation's forests and rangelands. On the one
hand, some of our forests and grasslands have adapted to
natural disturbance regimes. On the other hand, many areas
across the Nation are experiencing extended droughts, reduced
snow packs, damaging storm events, and other environmental
stressors. The presence of large amounts of hazardous forest
and rangeland fuels poses a risk of catastrophic wildfire that
threatens other public and private land and natural resources
and communities. Millions of acres of forest and rangeland
ecosystems are under attack from native insects, such as bark
beetles as well as non-native invasive species. For example
between 2000-2004, trees were killed on approximately 27.1
million acres in the Western States from a combination of
factors. These diverse threats affect aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems in virtually every region of the country.
current efforts
We believe that hazardous fuels treatment and other forest
management approaches, such as forest thinning projects can
help mitigate these risks, restore healthy forest conditions,
and increase the ability of our Nation's forests and grasslands
to adapt to ecological shifts associated with climate change.
The Forest Service has taken several actions to accomplish
these objectives, for example:
Forest Restoration Framework and Policy. The Forest Service
has completed a strategic, science-based framework for
restoring and maintaining forest and grassland ecological
conditions titled the ``Ecosystem Restoration Framework.'' The
framework looks at the development of an integrated agency-wide
forest restoration policy to promote ecosystem restoration and
efforts to integrate this work across all functional areas of
the agency. The framework also considers integration of
ecosystem restoration into our national strategic, forest land
and resource management plans, and project plans; and use of
incentives to increase accomplishment of restoration
objectives.
The framework will address policy factors such as
requirements to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate
ecological restoration activities in consideration of current
and future desired conditions and the potential for future
changes in environmental conditions, including climate change.
Our policy will provide consistent guidance to all of our field
units; communicate our intention to increase emphasis on
operating at a landscape scale, and our expectation to
accelerate collaborative restoration work. The policy is under
development and is expected to be released within the near
future.
Stewardship Contracting as a Tool to Accomplish
Restoration. The Forest Service has been actively using
stewardship contracts, part of the Healthy Forests Initiative,
to advance hazardous fuels reduction and other forest
restoration treatments in priority areas. Last year, we
completed an assessment of our progress on implementing
stewardship contracting, and we are working to expand our use
of stewardship contracting. We believe that stewardship
contracting is an effective tool to implement the landscape
restoration proposals under this bill, and we think that the
authority to enter into the contracts should be made permanent.
Several projects stand out as examples of this tool's
capability.
The White Mountain Stewardship Contract on the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Springerville, Arizona is
the largest stewardship contract in the nation. This contract
has a 10-year term to treat 15,000 acres per year for a total
of about 150,000 acres, and it is entering its fourth year. The
project was designed and is being carried out through a
collaboration of various state and local governments,
representatives of local forest products industry, and special
interest groups. The goals of this effort are to restore forest
health, reduce the risk of fire to communities, reduce the cost
of forest thinning, support local economies, and encourage new
wood product industries and uses for the thinned wood fiber.
Removal of saw timber is offsetting the cost of fuels
treatments and improvements to forest health. In addition, the
project will partially supply material to the Renegy Biomass
Plant (25 megawatt) in Snowflake, AZ.
In Alamogordo, New Mexico, the Lincoln National
Forest and the Mescalero Apache Tribe signed the 16 Springs
Stewardship Project under the authority of the Tribal Forest
Protection Act (TFPA, Public Law 108-248). This is the first
stewardship contract under the TFPA authority, which permits
the Federal government to enter into contracts and agreements
with American Indian Tribes for work on public lands bordering
on or adjacent to tribal lands. The 6-year contract involves
15,000 treatment acres (half with commercial timber harvest and
service work, half with service work only). The service work
primarily consists of thinning and fuel treatments. The project
is designed to reduce the threat of wildfire and forest disease
spread from public lands to Tribal land. The project will
contribute to the central priority of restoration of fire-
adapted ecosystems by reducing intensities of wildfires,
especially in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) as identified
under the Otero County Community Wildfire Protection Plan,
sanctioned by the Otero County Working Group. Furthermore, the
project will restore natural ecologic processes across a range
of forest types, provide forest products to the local
community, and enhance watershed conditions. The full
implementation of this contract will reduce the threat of
damaging wildfire to national forest system, private, and
tribal lands.
The Sustained Yield Restoration Stewardship
Contract on the Fremont-Winema National Forest in Lakeview,
Oregon is a contract with a 10-year term that we anticipate
will treat about 3,000 acres per year for a total of about
30,000 acres. This project will reduce the risk of catastrophic
fire and restore watershed conditions. The goals of the project
are to sustain and restore a healthy and resilient forest
ecosystem that can accommodate human and natural disturbances,
to sustain and restore the capacity to absorb, store, and
distribute quality water, and to enhance opportunities for
people to realize spiritual and recreational values on the
forest. The forest thinning treatments will yield sawlogs and
biomass. The biomass from this contract will provide a portion
of the material necessary to produce electric energy in the
planned $20-million Lakeview Biomass Plant. Once this plant is
operational, it is expected to annually produce about 13
megawatts of renewable energy. The project is an outgrowth of a
20-year Memorandum of Understanding signed by The Collins
Companies, Marubeni Sustainable Energy, Lake County Resources
Initiative, Oregon Department of Forestry, Lake County, Town of
Lakeview, City of Paisley, the BLM, and the Forest Service.
The Front Range Stewardship Contract is located on
the Pike, San Isabel, Arapaho, and Roosevelt National Forests
in Colorado and is a contract with a 10-year term that should
treat about 4,000 acres per year for a total of about 40,000
acres. This contract will involve the harvest of saw timber,
treatment of non-saw timber, biomass and slash and will create
fuel modification zones, fuelbreaks and fireline construction.
The project is designed to provide hazardous fuel reduction,
forest restoration, watershed enhancements, and related
services. The initiative is the outcome of the Front Range
Roundtable, a diverse group of stakeholders that has worked
together since 2003 to develop a long-term vision and roadmap
for achieving comprehensive fire risk mitigation and forest
health goals in the ten counties comprising Colorado's Front
Range. Through intense ecological analyses, the Roundtable
identified over 1.5 million acres along the Front Range in need
of treatment to reduce the risks of wildfire to communities and
restore forests to sound ecological health.
The Francis Marion Biomass Removal Stewardship
Project on the Francis Marion National Forest in Cordesville,
South Carolina offered two multi-year contracts to treat
approximately 2,000 acres per year for 5 years for a total of
10,000 acres. The primary objectives are to reduce fire hazard
and improve the forest health of dense stands of young loblolly
pine that established following Hurricane Hugo of 1989. The
contracts have stimulated a biomass chip market that
supplements the energy needs of local users for power
generation. The biomass chip value offsets the cost of pre-
commercial thinning and has realized a major savings for the
Forest. These contracts have resulted in stand treatment costs
dropping by about 50 percent. The project sprung from a
collaboration of Santee Cooper Power and Electric Company,
South Carolina Forestry Commission, the Native Plant Society
and the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and several
local fire departments from communities adjoining the Forest.
Many of the successes in our use of stewardship contracting
are a direct result of the development and implementation of
projects through collaborative partnerships with groups of
diverse interests.
Open Space Strategy. In December of 2007, we announced the
release of the ``Forest Service Open Space Strategy.'' Healthy
ecosystems require maintenance as well as restoration. The loss
of open space threatens the sustainability of the Nation's
forests and grasslands. We lose approximately 6,000 acres of
open space to development or land conversion each day across
the United States. Land development is outpacing population
growth, especially in rural areas where the trend is low
density, dispersed development. The new Forest Service strategy
provides a framework for working with others to conserve open
space. It emphasizes collaborative approaches and partnerships
to conserve ecologically and socially important forests,
grasslands, ranches, and urban green spaces. These important
lands provide vital ecosystem services and benefits for
society, such as clean air, abundant water, connected fish and
wildlife habitat, scenic beauty, outdoor recreation, and
renewable resource products.
Landscape Research. Forest Service Research and Development
provides long-term research, scientific knowledge, and tools
that can be used to manage, restore, and conserve forests and
rangelands. Forest Service research-based information relevant
to this bill includes social science on collaborative planning
that can help managers plan and carry out projects. Also, we
are responsible for the Nation's Forest Census, known as the
Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Research information is
essential for understanding effects and management options for
multiple stressors on ecosystems, such as drought, invasive
species, fire, and air pollution and loss of open space. Other
relevant research under way addresses how biomass utilization
can help reduce fire impacts by reducing fuel loads.
Additionally, there is ongoing research on costs of fire
suppression and various fuels treatment that will be available
for managers' use.
ecosystem services: a more inclusive path forward to obtaining forest
benefits
Our country and those elsewhere are becoming increasingly
aware of the importance of healthy forest ecosystems as
ecological life-support systems. As you know, healthy forests
provide strong economies and jobs, but also yield other goods
and services that are vital to human health and livelihood--
natural assets we call ecosystem services. Many of these goods
and services are traditionally viewed as free benefits to
society, or ``public goods''--wildlife habitat and diversity,
watershed services, carbon storage, and scenic landscapes, for
example. Recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with
economic and social value can help promote conservation and
more responsible decision-making.
The President's FY 2009 Budget reflects a commitment to the
expanded thinking about ecosystem services and recognition of
other values that flow from healthy ecosystems. The Budget's
proposal would bring new partners together with the Forest
Service in a broad effort to advance stewardship on national
forest lands in landscape-scale projects that address a full
range of ecosystem services. Restoring ecosystem function
through projects such as hazardous fuels reduction lets local
interests invest in local projects to their own benefit with an
assurance of the outcomes of that investment. Here are some of
the highlights of this proposal:
The Forest Service would have the authority to
implement up to five Ecosystem Services Demonstration Projects
with partners to restore, enhance, or protect ecosystem
functions on National Forest System lands.
Outcomes from these projects will demonstrate the
value of clean water, carbon sequestration, and other critical
services that forests provide.
The ecosystem services provided by these projects
will be identified and measured through applied research,
providing valuable information to potential and emerging
markets.
These projects will benefit the Forest Service and
a partner, defined as either a State, political subdivision of
a State, Indian tribe, or non-profit organization.
The projects will be expanded or accelerated using
the funds or services provided by a partner. Partnering
entities could carry out the project for the agency, provide
funds for project implementation up to a total of $10 million
for all projects, or provide a combination of funds and
services.
Each project will be consistent with applicable land and
resource management plans and will comply with environmental
laws and regulations.
All ecosystem service benefits that accrue from these
projects will remain public.
s. 2593, the forest landscape restoration act of 2008
As does the ecosystem services proposal, S. 2593 would
provide an additional tool for restoration consistent with
current efforts. Projects would be created collaboratively and
be part of a system that is evaluated on a landscape scale. In
particular, this could be helpful for developing comprehensive
management options that address issues related to climate
change. I would like to now turn to the bill language.
Section 3. Definitions. We believe a definition of the term
``restoration'' would be useful and should focus on restoration
of healthy, sustainable, productive ecosystems for the future,
as opposed to a return to a historic condition. We would like
to work with the Committee on the definition.
Section 4. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program. Section 4(a) would require the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to establish a
program to select and fund ecological restoration treatments
for priority forest landscapes. Section 4(b) sets out criteria
that ecological restoration proposals under the program would
be required to meet in order to be eligible for nomination.
Requirements include a landscape restoration strategy that
identifies and prioritizes treatments for a 10-year period
across a landscape that is at least 50,000 acres, and is
comprised of primarily forested National Forest System lands,
but may also include other Federal, State, tribal, or private
land. The restoration proposal would be required to be
developed and implemented through a collaborative process. It
must include an analysis that estimates the anticipated cost
savings resulting from reduced wildfire management costs, and
decreases the unit costs of implementing ecological restoration
treatments over time. Additionally, the restoration proposal
must include an estimate of the amount of new non-Federal
investment that would be leveraged by Federal funding for
restoration treatments, though non-Federal investments are not
affirmatively required.
We support the intent of the bill to work on a landscape
scale, to integrate the best available science, and to
implement proposals through a collaborative process. We already
use criteria to support resource allocation in priority
treatment areas regarding hazardous fuels. However, we suggest
the Administration's ecosystem services proposal provides for a
broader suite of actions beyond hazardous fuels alone, but are
willing to work with the Committee on technical aspects of the
eligibility criteria in the bill.
Section 4(c) sets out a nomination process that would
require submission of proposals to Regional Foresters for
consideration. As part of the nomination process, Section
4(c)(3)(B) would require the Regional Forester to obtain
concurrence from the Secretary of the Interior if actions under
the jurisdiction of Interior are proposed.
Section 4(d) would establish the process for selecting the
collaborative forest landscape restoration proposals, which
would require consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
even for proposals that do not affect lands administered by the
Interior Secretary. We would like to work with the Committee to
modify this provision to require consultation only when lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior are part of the
proposal.
Section 4(f) would establish the Collaborative Forest
Restoration Fund that could be used to pay up to 50 percent of
the cost for carrying out proposals for ecological restoration
treatments on National Forest System lands. The bill provides
for authorization of up to 40 million dollars to the Fund for
each fiscal year 2008 through 2018. No more than 10 proposals
could be funded during any given year, nor could more than 2
proposals be funded in any 1 region during a given year. Under
section 4(f)(3) amounts appropriated from the general fund of
the Treasury would be invested in interest bearing securities
of the United States. The Administration objects to this
provision. Amounts available for investment should be limited
to funds collected from the public and not to funds
appropriated from the General Fund which are not made subject
to the appropriations process. We are also concerned that
amounts appropriated to the Fund may result in a decrease of
amounts appropriated for other high priority work and that
there is no requirement for matching of non-Federal monies for
projects that occur on non-Federal lands.
Section 4(g) would establish program implementation and
monitoring requirements. Section 4(g)(1) would require the
creation of an implementation work plan that includes a
description of the landscape restoration proposal, a business
plan, and documentation of the non-Federal investment in the
priority landscape. Section 4(g)(4) would require the
Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Interior,
to use a multi-party monitoring, evaluation, and accountability
process to access the ecological, social, and economic effects
of each forest landscape restoration project. We are concerned
that, in practice, the implementation of the bill may be
administratively burdensome. Also, it is not clear when
environmental analysis would be required. However, we would be
happy to work with the Committee on clarifying language and to
make any necessary administrative changes to the bill.
We support landscape level planning, projects implemented
cooperatively, and monitoring of performance. We recommend
replacing ``multi-party monitoring'' with ``science-based
monitoring''. This bill would provide the opportunity to use a
network of landscape level projects to conduct coordinated
research on key questions, such as effects of treatments on
soil, water, fire hazard, wildlife, insect and disease, and
economics. A well designed system of science-based monitoring
at the appropriate scale, combined with a well-designed set of
landscape treatments, would provide valuable information about
the effects and effectiveness of large landscape treatments
over time across a number of different types of ecosystems. The
results of the monitoring would improve information for
managers providing a network of standard measures of
effectiveness and effects of landscape restoration.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to working
with Congress and various stakeholders to protect communities
and people and to work collaboratively to restore healthy
ecological conditions on lands of all ownerships that have
undergone many changes. We believe that the actions we are
currently taking will be enhanced by various provisions of S.
2593, particularly if combined with the provisions of our
ecosystem services demonstration project legislative proposal.
Together they will provide the Forest Service some important
tools we need to do work to restore our Nation's forests and
grasslands to a condition so they can better resist disease,
insects, and catastrophic fire.
We recognize and appreciate the time spent by the Committee
to develop a bipartisan constructive approach to carrying out
collaborative ecosystem restoration of priority forest
landscapes. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the
Committee to explore the establishment of an ecosystem services
authority and to make technical amendments to clarify and
strengthen the bill. I will be glad to answer any questions you
may have.
------
Statement of Henri Bisson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management
Thank you for the opportunity to testify for the Department
of the Interior (DOI) on S. 2593, the Forest Landscape
Restoration Act of 2008, which establishes a collaborative and
science-based forest landscape restoration program that would
prioritize and fund forest-based ecological restoration
treatments. The DOI strongly supports landscape scale
restoration efforts, and believes in the goals of landscape-
level approaches to land management. While we do have concerns
with the legislation, which are discussed below, we appreciate
the sponsors' intent in introducing S. 2593 to manage land
health on a landscape scale.
In our view, a true ecological approach to restoration
begins with a collaborative evaluation of what is best for the
health of the landscape and is followed by the engagement of
the appropriate partners. This approach is more effective in
achieving the mutual goal of improving landscape health which,
in turn, improves resiliency to the risk of wildfires and
invasive species and preserves key wildlife habitat. It
aggregates the investments of the partners and increases the
cost-effectiveness of those investments. We would like to take
this opportunity to share our current efforts to improve the
ecological health of lands through a landscape-scale
collaborative approach.
background
Collaborative landscape-scale treatments continue to be the
focus and priority in carrying out land management objectives
on DOI-administered lands. It is important for us to look at
management from a landscape perspective beyond geopolitical
boundaries and isolated ecosystems. Forests, woodlands and
rangelands are a mosaic where the lands, resources and
communities are all interconnected. From this perspective, we
see the interdependence of resources and the need to develop
interdisciplinary strategies for balanced multiple-use
management across the entire landscape.
Several current activities and proposed programs in the
Administration's FY 2009 budget request already promote
landscape-level approaches to restoring and maintaining land
health that engage a number of Federal and non-Federal
partners. Examples of key DOI programs include the Healthy
Lands Initiative and the Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels
Reduction Program.
Healthy Lands Initiative--One challenge DOI faces is
meeting land health goals that are required to integrate
landscape-scale habitat restoration and resource management.
Through the Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI), DOI is working
collaboratively with our Federal and non-Federal partners to
restore, enhance, and protect habitats through landscape-scale
restoration initiatives and conservation planning, allowing us
to continue to fulfill our multiple-use mandates. HLI considers
the health of the land at a landscape scale instead of acre by
acre.
Initiated in Fiscal Year 2007, the Department's Healthy
Lands Initiative focuses on implementing landscape-scale
habitat restoration and conservation projects across both
public and private lands. All of the projects implemented under
this Initiative promote the maintenance or restoration of
healthy native plant communities with the increased ability to
survive or adapt to anticipated changes in the environment in
the future. The Healthy Lands Initiative represents a concept
for meeting emerging challenges in managing natural resources
for continued multiple use with flexible landscape-level
approaches. Land restoration efforts are targeted toward
priority landscapes to achieve various resource objectives,
including resource protection, rehabilitation, and biological
diversity. A key component of this initiative is the
partnership aspect of HLI and working closely with our
neighbors to initiate and fund landscape-scale restoration work
that allows for continued healthy, working landscapes. The BLM
leverages appropriated funding with matching funds provided by
other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments,
philanthropic organizations, advocacy groups, and industry
partners.
The 2009 Budget includes a total of $21.9 million within
DOI to meet land health goals, a $14 million increase over the
2008 enacted level. BLM has the largest level of involvement in
this initiative. In FY 2009, the BLM is requesting a $10.0
million increase over the FY 2008 enacted level of funding of
$4.9 million, for a total of $14.9 million for HLI. An
additional $8.2 million in BLM base funding also supports
healthy lands. The BLM proposes to expand HLI to California as
an addition to the six initial project areas located in New
Mexico, Utah, Southcentral Idaho, Southwest Wyoming, Southeast
Oregon-Southwest Idaho-Northern Nevada, and Western Colorado.
The Colorado project area will be expanded to the northwestern
part of the State in 2009.
Our approach, working with our partners to maintain healthy
landscapes, sustain wildlife and maintain continued access to
the public lands for multiple uses supports a landscape-level
approach to natural resource management and restoration.
We would like to highlight a few of the many successes and
planned efforts that illustrate our ability to conserve the
diversity and productivity of the landscape through the
opportunities we have in HLI.
The Colorado Landscape Conservation Initiative
encompasses 20.5 million acres of mixed ownership, including
roughly 4 million acres managed by the BLM. This area provides
quality habitat for diverse wildlife populations, including
seven of the eight remaining populations of Gunnison sage-
grouse, as well as numerous special status species. The BLM,
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado
Division of Wildlife and private partners are working together
to restore, enhance, and protect habitats through conservation
planning efforts and partnerships. To enhance existing
resources and restore conditions, BLM Colorado's planned
actions include implementing habitat treatment projects,
implementing effective weed management efforts, expanding the
native seed program, pursuing conservation easements, and
monitoring treatment effectiveness. This year BLM is spending
close to $400,000 to treat 560 acres of wetlands, 12 miles of
stream, 3,060 acres of shrub, grass, woodland, and 10 riparian
projects. In the Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget request,
the BLM is requesting almost $2 million to treat 1,380 acres of
wetlands, 14 miles of stream, 3,110 acres of forest, shrub,
grass, woodland, 1,380 acres of weeds, and 27 riparian projects
In New Mexico, the BLM is working closely with
private, state, and other Federal partners to restore desert
grasslands that are being supplanted with invasive mesquite.
Removing the mesquite from these landscapes reduces habitat
fragmentation for important species such as the Lesser Prairie
Chicken and Aplomado Falcon and improves the overall natural
biodiversity of desert grasslands. The BLM treated 40,000 acres
in Fiscal Year 2007, is planning to treat 48,730 acres in
Fiscal Year 2008, and is requesting almost $3.5 million to
treat 132,320 acres in Fiscal Year 2009. Additional non-BLM
acreage is being treated using other contributed funds.
BLM also engages in comprehensive land health treatments
through other base activities. For instance:
The BLM plans institutionalization of landscape
level land health treatments that characterize HLI. In Montana,
the BLM is addressing landscape-scale restoration on a 600,000
acre watershed in the southwest part of the state. A recent
forest health assessment on a 32,000 acre area, known as the
south Tobacco Roots watershed, found that altered forest
structure, density and species composition in the mid-elevation
forests, of which both Forest Service and BLM are major land
managers, is putting these forests at high risk to insect
epidemic and catastrophic wildfire. The agencies have been
working collaboratively with private landowners, conservation
groups, and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation to begin restoration across the watershed. The DOI
planned actions are 4,000 acres of forest restoration sales
followed by prescribed burn and 1,600 acres of juniper
treatment by prescribed burn. These treatments across the
entire watershed will restore the health, resiliency and
productivity of the entire watershed and continue to provide
high quality habitat, as well as a high quality place to live
and work for the people who live here.
National Fire Plan/Healthy Forests Initiative/Healthy
Forests Restoration Act--Two major challenges facing DOI are
addressing ecosystem health and the accumulation of flammable
fuels on Federal lands, a major cause of fire risk. Multiple
factors contribute to wildfire, which include weather, fuel
type, terrain, location with respect to the wildland urban
interface, and other highly valued landscapes, and managerial
decisions made before and during fire incidents. As we have
noted in past testimony before this Committee, we are seeing
changing temperature and prolonged drought across many portions
of the West and Southwest and an expansion of the wildland
urban interface and an increase in the number of people living
there. Fifty-seven million people now reside within 25 miles of
BLM lands, and BLM lands host approximately 58 million
recreation visits annually.
As current trends indicate wildfire seasons may be lasting
longer and the burned areas are becoming large. Continued
accumulation of wood fiber, and substantial increases in highly
flammable invasive species, are converging to increase the risk
of catastrophic loss from wildland fires. The DOI, along with
the Forest Service and other partners, is addressing cost
containment measures to reduce suppression costs. We are also
working hard in developing a cohesive approach among Federal
partners, local governments, private organizations and citizens
to reduce hazardous fuels and restore and maintain forest,
woodland and rangeland health. This is being achieved through
various initiatives such as the National Fire Plan (NFP), the
Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), and implementation of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). To date, we
have made considerable progress.
Since 2001, the DOI has worked aggressively to reduce the
amount of hazardous fuels on Federal lands and restore the
health of our public forests, woodlands and rangelands,
utilizing the authorities provided under the HFI and the HFRA.
Of the 258 million acres administered by the BLM, 69 million
acres are forests and woodlands located in the 11 western
states. HFI and HFRA have provided the BLM with tools to ensure
sound management practices and to implement hazardous fuels
reduction projects and stewardship contracting.
The BLM's hazardous fuels reduction and forests, woodlands
and rangelands rehabilitation activities have also been guided
by the National Fire Plan (NFP). The goals are to reduce fuels
(combustible forest materials) in forests, woodlands, and
rangelands at risk, rehabilitate and restore fire-damaged
ecosystems, and work with local residents to reduce fire risk
and improve fire protection. The NFP is being successfully
implemented under the leadership of an interagency and
intergovernmental group of Federal, state and local agencies
working cooperatively to reduce wildfire risk and restore fire-
adapted ecosystems. Investments made to restore land health
today can have a profound impact on the resiliency of the
treated acres to catastrophic and expensive wildfires in the
future. Many treatments, such as thinning in forests and
woodlands have an additional benefit of improving watershed
conditions, wildlife habitat, and species diversity. Overall,
the DOI has applied nearly 8 million acres of hazardous fuels
reduction treatments to forests, woodlands, and rangelands on
the public lands since 2001, using the tools of prescribed
burns, and chemical and mechanical fuels treatments, as well as
restored 1.4 million acres through other landscape restoration
activities.
The 2009 President's budget proposes $850 million to
support fire preparedness, suppression, fuels reduction, and
burned area rehabilitation needs for the DOI. This is a $42
million increase over the 2008 enacted level (excluding
supplementals). The DOI continues to support the Healthy
Forests Initiative. The budget proposes $202 million for
hazardous fuels reduction program. These funds will support
more high priority fuels treatment projects. Putting forth the
effort to cooperatively reduce wildfire risk and restore fire-
adapted ecosystems now will lead to reduced fire impacts and
costs in the future.
s. 2593
The legislation calls for the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to establish a
collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to select
and fund ecological restoration treatments for priority forest
landscapes.
Section 4(b) discusses eligibility criteria for
collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal
nominations. One criterion is for the proposals to be comprised
primarily of forested National Forest System land, but may also
include other Federal, State, tribal, or private land.
Section 4(c) describes the nomination process, requiring
the Regional Forester to nominate collaborative forest
landscape restoration proposals for selection by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
Section 4(f) establishes a fund for the cost of carrying
out ecological restoration treatments on National Forest System
land, allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to use the fund to
treat National Forest System lands for each collaborative
forest landscape restoration proposal selected. It is unclear
if the fund can be used to treat lands outside of the National
Forest System that comprise a portion of a selected restoration
project. The section also authorizes to be appropriated $40
million for each of fiscal years 2008-2018, to remain available
until expended, and it allows interest to be credited to the
fund.
Section 4(g) states the Secretary of Agriculture shall, in
collaboration with the Secretary of the Interior and interested
stakeholders, use a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and
accountability process for not less than 15 years after project
implementation commences. The bill also requires the Secretary
of the Interior, as a collaborator with the Secretary of
Agriculture, to report on accomplishments for collaborative
forest landscape projects carried out under the authorities of
this legislation.
As previously stated, we support landscape level approaches
to land health. The legislation would provide the Secretary
with an additional tool for restoration treatments for priority
forest landscapes on public lands. As noted above, however, the
Department, through the Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Program and the Healthy Lands Initiative, and the U.S. Forest
Service already engage in activities proposed to be included in
the bill. Moreover, the FY 2009 budget proposes Ecosystems
Services Demonstration Projects in the Forest Service,
described in greater detail in the Forest Service's testimony
today.
Of particular concern to the Administration is the creation
of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. The
bill requires the Fund provide up to fifty percent of the cost
of carrying out ecological restoration. It is not clear what
mechanism would require Federal agencies to seek partner
funding from non-Federal sources. Leveraging Federal funds with
non-Federal funds is a vital element to successfully
undertaking landscape level restoration projects as it
facilitates collaboration and commitment by our non-Federal
partners. Under section 4(f)(3) amounts appropriated from the
general fund of the Treasury would be invested in interest
bearing securities of the United States. The Administration
objects to this provision. Amounts available for investment
should be limited to funds collected from the public and not to
funds appropriated from the General Fund which are not made
subject to the appropriations process. We also have concerns
that implementation of the bill may be administratively
burdensome.
Finally, we are committed to working with the Committee and
the legislation's sponsor to ensure that any legislation
effectively considers the health and restoration of forests,
woodlands, and rangelands.
conclusion
Landscape-scale restoration continues to be a high priority
for DOI. In collaboration with our partners, we have made
considerable strides in restoring thousands of acres of Federal
lands along with state and privately-owned lands under the
jurisdiction of our partners. The DOI will continue to work
towards achieving priorities in an effort to make significant
improvements in the health and productivity of the public
forests, woodlands and rangelands at the landscape level. We
look forward to working with the Committee on S. 2593. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify, I will be happy to answer
any questions.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 2593 as ordered
reported.