69–010 

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). 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

(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; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

(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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

(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.—


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

(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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

mechanism that supplements local resources and encourages nonFederal 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

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 longterm 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 imVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:38 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR370.XXX SR370

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

plement 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 fireresilient 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:38 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR370.XXX SR370

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

quires 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:38 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR370.XXX SR370

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

tracts (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 onthe-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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
15 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

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: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

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 fireadapted 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 enVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:38 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR370.XXX SR370

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

hancements, 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 researchVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:38 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR370.XXX SR370

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

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 landscapescale 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

• 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
23 

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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
25 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

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 IdahoNorthern 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
27 

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. ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:38 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR370.XXX SR370

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
28 

tinued 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
29 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 

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. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS