U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–933 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–354

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO

CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE USDA FOREST SERVICE

FEBRUARY 14, 2008

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming ............................................. 3

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho ................................................... 25

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico .................................... 3

Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ................... 9

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the Environment, Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 4

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado .................................................. 2 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 37

(1)

* Charts have been retained in committee files. 

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room SD–

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Why don’t we go ahead and start the hearing. 

We welcome everybody. This is a hearing to consider the President’s proposal to fund the Forest Service for fiscal year 2009. 

I’d like to welcome Secretary Rey and Chief Kimbell, and particularly thank both of you and your staffs for submitting the budget 

justification in time so that we could have it for this hearing. We 

very much appreciate that. 

Let me also make a few additional points as part of an opening 

statement. Just to give you at least the perspective that I have on 

things and then defer to Senator Domenici. First, I’d just like to 

put the budget proposal into context. There’s a chart* over here 

that I think accurately reflects the non-fire funding for the non-fire 

programs at the Forest Service. It’s sort of hard to read from this 

distance. 

Do we have a copy of this? Senator Domenici has. I guess there’s 

supposed to be a copy in front of you there somewhere. 

At any rate what it tries to do is to talk about the percentage 

change in cumulative growth in these budgets from 2001 to 2009. 

Then it looks at the various departments and agencies of the government, at least some of them. Unfortunately, it shows the Forest 

Service on the far right end of this chart. 

It indicates that the non-fire programs in the Forest Service have 

suffered or propose to suffer a 35 percent cut from 2001 levels. 

There’ve been cuts, as the chart shows, in other environmental and 

natural resources programs as well. It’s clear that those are areas 

of the Federal budget that have been given very little priority by 

the Administration. 

The second point I would make is another chart.* The Wildfire 

Management budget, itself, has grown very substantially. It’s 

2

grown as a percentage of the overall budget. While the fire portion 

of the budget has grown from 18 percent to 49 percent in recent 

decades, the funding for non-fire programs has shrunk in the Federal budget, down to just 52 percent. 

In light of these charts it should not be a surprise that the proposed budget, the budget that’s been submitted to us poses very 

major, pretty devastating cuts in many of the Forest Service’s programs. One example, the budget proposes to cut the State and Private Forestry programs by 58 percent this next year. We could go 

on with detailing other specific proposed cuts, but we may get into 

some of that in the questions. 

I think it’s unfortunate that for our witnesses to have to preside 

over this reduction in funding in the areas that they are responsible for. I think that many of our communities have suffered as 

a result; communities that are dependent upon our national forests. 

I think that’s a problem we need to address. 

But I’ll get into some of that in the questions. Let me defer to 

Senator Domenici for any opening statement that he has. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Salazar and Barrasso follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Domenici. 

I want to welcome Undersecretary Mark Rey and Chief Gail Kimbell—it is good 

to have you here for this annual hearing. 

On January 14, the United States Forest Service (USFS) announced the results 

of its 2007 aerial surveys of Colorado forests. The surveys confirmed that Colorado’s 

bark beetle infestation has spread to one and a half million acres. Experts agree 

that in three to five years the mortality rate for Colorado’s mature lodgepole pines 

will be no less than 90%. 

The threat of a catastrophic fire due to these poor forest health conditions is real 

and it could result in lost lives and property as well as damage to regionally important watersheds and Colorado’s way of life. 

This threat has united a diverse set of stakeholders in Colorado to actively address this issue. Private landowners, local communities, the State of Colorado, and 

the Federal government are working to collaboratively mitigate the fire dangers associated with deteriorating forest health conditions. This effort is making incremental progress, but most agree that a limiting factor in the mitigation work is the 

funding available. 

I would like to acknowledge that USDA and the Forest Service has been working 

with me and the Colorado delegation to reprogram available funding to Region Two 

and Colorado, when available. This funding has been used to avoid cuts to ongoing 

hazardous fuels work on the ground as our local communities address the impacts 

of the bark beetle infestation. So, thank you for that attention Undersecretary Rey 

and Chief Kimbell—I look forward to continuing to work with you both on this 

issue. 

I do want note my concern that the Forest Service is not going to be able to maintain, let alone improve, our forests with a budget that is a 22% decrease from last 

year and a 13.5% decrease from 2001. I think cutting Colorado’s region two budget 

by 11% send the wrong message to our partners at the state and local level. 

Undersecretary Rey, your testimony rightly focuses on the growing cost of fire 

suppression and its increased allocation in the Forest Service budget. It is clear to 

me that as the ten year average suppression cost is placed into the budget it exerts 

tremendous funding pressure on other core Forest Serve activities. This committee 

has examined suppression costs and efforts to reduce them in the past and I believe 

we must continue to work on this issue. 

Legislatively, I believe there is an opportunity for the Energy & Natural Resources Committee to consider legislative proposals that would provide the USFS 

with increased resources and authorities to play a larger role in mitigation efforts 

underway across the country. 

For instance, mirroring the collaboration taking place in our state, the Colorado 

Congressional delegation drafted the bipartisan, consensus Colorado Forest ManageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
3

ment Improvement Act (S. 2546) to facilitate greater federal participation in the response to the bark beetle infestation in our state. Senator Allard and I introduced 

this bill in the Senate, and our colleagues on the House side introduced companion 

legislation. While the provisions in The Colorado Forest Management Improvement 

Act are specific to Colorado, they can be broadened to complement a regional or national legislative effort. 

Another important proposal is the Forest Landscape Restoration Act, developed 

by Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici. I co-sponsored this legislation to encourage and fund collaborative forest health efforts on the landscape scale. 

I look forward to working on these initiatives with my colleagues on the committee and the Forest Service. 

Again, thank you to our witnesses and thank you to Senators Bingaman and 

Domenici who have been real champions on these tough issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Budget and operations of the USDA Forest Service are very important to the state 

of Wyoming. Our forests and grasslands are vital to recreation, tourism, grazing, 

timber and energy development in the state. 

The President’ Budget proposal for the Forest Service in Fiscal year 2009 is troubling for Wyoming. Based on this budget the agency is borrowing from the future—

putting off until tomorrow what it should do today. The agency is moving money 

from core management responsibilities that are vital to its mission, to feed the everincreasing cost of wildfire suppression. The people of Wyoming recognize that this 

is not a sustainable situation. We cannot go on neglecting our forests and rangelands. This agency has to get fire spending under control, and they have to get back 

to the real business of land management. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to discussing these 

important issues with you.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing on the Forest Service’s Fiscal 

2009 budget. Welcome Gail Kimbell, Chief of the Forest Service 

and Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey to the hearing. 

Mark, I notice that this may be your last opportunity to present 

a budget to the committee. I want to thank you for your efforts and 

attention that you’ve given and provided to the Forest Service and 

to this committee over the years. It’s been difficult, under difficult 

circumstances, but you’ve done a good job. 

I know many committee members have a significant number of 

concerns about a number of the proposals in the budget, including 

the relative cost of fire suppression compared to the other discretionary accounts in the budget. I, too, have a number of issues 

which I will discuss in my questions. But there is one issue that 

I am compelled to bring up in this statement. 

I am more than a little upset by the failure of this budget to include any funding for Valles Caldera Preserve. Zero. 

I know Senator Bingaman shares my concern and I know you 

both understand how important it is for the Forest Service to contribute to the Preserve’s efforts to become self-sufficient. Certainly 

to give them nothing does not contribute to this approach, which 

we gave them when they were created to become self-sufficient as 

soon as practicable using you and using the assets they had to 

make money. But to get zero from the national government is 

clearly, in my opinion, something that goes far beyond what anybody would have expected to mean a real cooperation in an effort 

to move toward the independence sought in the law. 

4

I am concerned that you may have missed some of the real 

progress that the staff and board of directors have made at 

Caldera. Caldera increased public visitation from a few hundred 

people when the ranch was in private hands to over 10,000 visitors 

a year. They have increased revenues in many of the resource programs and reduced their staff and other costs. 

The staff has begun a number of new programs to encourage 

winter visitation and use and to increase its revenues. They’ve 

even shown a net return on grazing this past season which is better than anyone expected. I know you understand that the appropriations process is a two way street. I know that you understand 

that we have to help each other if each of our priorities are to be 

funded. 

I have to conclude by telling you that this budget proposal for 

this line item was not helpful, not at all helpful. Mr. Chairman, 

this is all that I have at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Why don’t we go ahead 

with the testimony? Secretary Rey, did you wish to begin or Chief 

Kimbell, either way? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. REY. I’ll start if it’s alright. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead. 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget for 

the Forest Service. In my testimony I’ll discuss three issues that 

relate to the 2009 budget. 

First I’ll address wildland fire programs and management reforms. Next I’ll address the need to provide 4 years of further transitional assistance to rural counties that receive benefits under the 

Secure Rural Schools bill of 2000. Finally I’ll discuss the redesign 

of Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs and related 

Federal investments proposed in the 2008 Farm bill. 

With regard to wildland fire, the 2009 budget proposes a total of 

$1.977 billion for wildland fire management programs including: 

$994 million for suppression, $588 million for preparedness, $297 

million for hazardous fuels and the continued funding for other National Fire Plan activities. Additionally, the Forest Service is adopting significant management reforms to ensure equitable fire suppression cost sharing between Federal and other fire fighting entities, fully implement risk-informed appropriate management response and enact cost containment accountability throughout wildfire programs. Despite more fires in 2007 than occurred in 2006 

and a 49 percent increase in acres burned, the cost of suppressing 

Forest Service fires was $127 million lower in 2007 due to aggressive implementation of appropriate management response and 

other cost containment measures. 

Indeed the savings over projected 2007 expenditures as a result 

of implementing these cost reforms was more than $200 million, including $14 million in the use of aviation assets, or in other words, 

firefighting airplanes. The southern California fires at the end of 

the 2007 fire season further exemplify the successful coordination 

5

in risk mitigation activities that have made the Forest Service fire 

organization a model the world over. 

You may recall that at your hearing on December 13th, I compared the response to the 2007 southern California fires with a response to the 2003 California fires, its illustrated improvements in 

performance, effectiveness, and cost containment in 12 key areas. 

I won’t repeat that today because it’s part of the transcript and the 

record of your December 13 hearing. 

Overall, a number of important reforms were conducted in 2007 

that both saved money and are reflected in how we built the 2008 

budget. This week the Forest Service released its fire and aviation 

management year in review for fiscal year 2007, recounting many 

of these savings and accomplishments. I’ll submit the entirety of 

this report for the record. 

In fiscal year 2009, the WildLand Fire Management Program 

will continue to improve performance through the attention to policy, training, oversight, decision support tools, and after-action performance analysis. At your hearing last year, I provided you with 

a summary of 47 different reforms that the Fire and Aviation Program was evaluating for the purposes of cost containment and additional effectiveness. Today I’ll submit for the record of your hearing an update on the progress made in each of these areas, 

progress that, I believe, will continue to effect cost savings throughout the Fire and Aviation and Management program. 

Now, if I could refer to the charts that you used earlier. I won’t 

take issue with those charts because the cost of fire suppression is 

increasing dramatically. However, I will make one point that I 

think is important to make about this chart in particular. If you 

exclude all of the wildland fire program in illustrating the reduction in funding for other Forest Service Programs, you’re also excluding all the funding we’ve provided in the Healthy Forests Initiative because fuels reduction is part of the wild land fire account. 

So I think you’ve excluded about 800 million more dollars than is 

reasonable to exclude because that is an Administration priority to 

increase funding as we have for the last 5 years for fuel reduction 

purposes. That’s one of the Administration’s and the Chief’s and 

the Former Chief’s top four priorities. 

So, I won’t dispute these numbers. They’re accurate. But the situation isn’t quite as dramatic as it looks because if you added fuels 

reduction money back in, this bar would be substantially shorter, 

the Forest Service, in all probability, would be on the other side of 

EPA. 

Again, that’s not to say that we’re happy with this. If I had my 

druthers, I’d rather serve during a period of budget surpluses and 

above average rainfall, but neither of those have been the case. So 

we do with what we have. 

Now to the Secure Rural Schools legislation. The Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 was, as 

this committee knows as its originating committee, enacted to provide transitional assistance to rural counties affected by the decline 

in revenue from timber harvests in Federal lands. Though the Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2006, Congress extended payments for a seventh year under Public Law 110–28. The final year 

of payments were made in December 2007. 

6

Our 2009 budget proposal includes a legislative proposal that 

provides $200 million above the current base line for a 4-year extension of the forest county safety net payments, which will be targeted to the most affected areas, capped and adjusted downward 

each year, and phased out. USDA would, under our proposal, make 

payments on behalf of both the Department of Agriculture and the 

Department of the Interior. Offsets for the Administration’s proposal are provided within the top line of the President’s budget 

with offsets throughout the Department of Agriculture and elsewhere for 2009 and beyond. For 2008 payments to be made in 

2009, the Administration continues to be prepared to work with 

Congress to identify mutually agreeable offsets. 

With regard to State and Private Forestry, the 2009 budget focuses resources on national forest and grassland responsibilities. 

But it also reflects a redesigned State and Private Forestry program approach. That approach has been developed in conjunction 

with the National Association of State Foresters and reflects a different way to deliver State and Private Forestry programs. 

Included in that difference is a substantial increase in funding 

for private, non-industrial, forest land conservation embodied in 

the Administration’s 2007 Farm bill proposal. Funding is proposed 

in the Farm bill for purposes and activities similar to those supported by State and Private Forestry programs. The conservation, 

forestry, and energy titles of the Farm bill authorize nearly $10 billion in incentives to States, local governments, and non-industrial 

private forest landowners to pursue conservation, forest restoration, and biomass energy. The products and processes of the State 

and Private Forestry redesign have helped focus collaborative efforts around important national priorities which will also receive 

significant intention and support in the 2008 Farm bill. 

So here again, the total picture, as is the case in almost all of 

USDA’s budgets, is one that has to put discretionary appropriations, both those that this committee has some jurisdiction over as 

well as those that the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over, 

along side the mandatory accounts that would be funded in the 

Farm bill. I’ll provide for the record for the committee’s hearing a 

summary of what we’ve proposed, as well as a side by side of 

what’s included in the Senate and the House Farm bill proposals 

with regard to additional funding for State and Private Forestry. 

But I think—and I understand that looking at just our discretionary budget complicates the issue—if you add those two together, what you’ll find is that in many areas funding for private, 

non-industrial forest land conservation is actually going to be increased as a consequence of the synergy between this budget and 

the Farm bill which we hope that Congress will enact in short 

order. 

With that I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. I’ll 

turn now to Chief Kimbell. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

7

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OVERVIEW

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Budget for the Forest Service during 

today’s hearing. I am pleased to join Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell at this hearing today. 

In my testimony, I will discuss three issues that relate to the 2009 Budget. First, 

I will address Wildland Fire programs and management reforms. Next, I will address the need to provide 4 years of further transitional assistance to rural counties 

that received benefits under Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act of 

2000. Finally, I will discuss the redesign of Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs and related Federal investments proposed in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

WILDLAND FIRE

The 2009 budget proposes a total of $1.977 billion for Wildland Fire Management programs, including $994 million for Suppression, $588 million for Preparedness, 

$297 million for Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and continued funding for other National Fire Plan activities. Additionally, the Forest Service is adopting significant 

management reforms to ensure equitable sharing of fire suppression costs between 

Federal and other firefighting entities, fully implement risk-informed Appropriate 

Management Response, and enact cost-containment accountability throughout 

Wildland Fire programs. 

The 2007 fire season illustrated the continued success of the Forest Service fire 

organization, but also the challenges we face. Fires in recent years have become 

larger and more difficult to control due to a variety of factors, including climate 

change, historic fire suppression efforts resulting in increased density of hazard 

fuels, and expansion of residences in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). As a result, fire activity in 2007 was above normal by many standards. Across all jurisdictions, wildland fires totaled more than 78,000 incidents, burning over 9 million 

acres. Thirteen different fires burned over 100,000 acres each, and the Nation was 

in Preparedness Level 5 for 33 days—the highest level of fire activity during which 

several geographic areas are experiencing simultaneous major incidents. Despite 

more fires than in 2006, and a 49 percent increase in acres burned, the cost of suppressing Forest Service fires was $127 million lower in 2007 due to aggressive implementation of Appropriate Management Response and other cost containment 

measures. 

The southern California fires at the end of the 2007 fire season further exemplified the successful coordination and risk mitigation activities that have made the 

Forest Service fire organization a model the world over. Compared to similar events 

in 2003, the 2007 fires had more fire starts (271 compared to 213) and more large 

fires that escaped initial attack (20 compared to 14), yet much less resulting damage. Only 65 percent as many acres were burned, 60 percent as many structures 

were destroyed, 60 percent as many firefighters were injured, and 40 percent as 

many civilian fatalities occurred, compared to 2003. Improvements are attributable 

to pre-positioning efforts, investments in hazardous fuels treatments and community 

capacity, and coordination with other Federal, State, and local entities. And, these 

improvements occurred, notwithstanding the construction of over 189,000 new 

homes since 2003 in the wildland-urban interface in the affected southern California 

counties. 

In spite of these signs of success, the 2007 fire season still resulted in nearly $1.4 

billion of expenditures on fire suppression. As application of Federal firefighting resources on both Federal and non-Federal land has grown, annual suppression expenditures escalate, as does the 10-year average of annual fire suppression expenditures, which determines the program’s budget request. 

The Budget makes a priority of the protection of communities, the environment, 

and firefighters, and providing for the higher costs of suppression is a reasonable 

and prudent action consistent with our protection priorities. The 2009 Fire Suppression request is $994 million, over $250 million higher than it was just 2 years ago, 

and nearly $150 million more than the current enacted level. The total Wildland 

Fire Management program, including continued focus on the National Fire Plan, 

makes up over 48 percent of the agency’s discretionary budget request. The Forest 

Service is adopting substantive management reforms to mitigate this cost trend for 

suppression. 

In FY 2009, the Wildland Fire Management program will continue to improve performance through attention to policy, training, oversight, decision support tools, and 

8

after-action performance analysis. Management policy is set at the national level, 

and provides clear guidance for the role of Federal firefighters in the wildland-urban 

interface. Management policy also provides strategies of Appropriate Management 

Response, expectations concerning national shared resources and aviation resource 

cost management, and limitations to Severity funding. Mandatory training keeps 

agency administrators up to date on national policy. During an incident, the Chief’s 

Principal Representative provides oversight, while decision support tools such as 

Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR) and Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) 

offer the incident commander information on fire spread probability, resource values 

at risk, and historic costs for similar fires. After-action reviews, including use of the 

Stratified Cost Index, provide lessons and best practices to include in subsequent 

updates to management policy. This performance improvement process resulted in 

savings estimated at $200 million in suppression expenditures during 2007, and will 

enable the agency to maintain Fire Preparedness resources within a $588 million 

program budget, a decrease of $77 million from 2008. 

Several additional wildfire management reforms are based on recommendations 

of a USDA Office of Inspector General report that examined large fire suppression 

costs. The report documented inequitable apportionment of fire protection responsibilities between Federal and local entities in residential areas that abut national 

forests. In response, the Forest Service is renegotiating master protection agreements to clarify roles and ensure equitable and appropriate allocation of wildlandurban interface firefighting costs between the agreement parties. 

Additionally, the Forest Service is implementing a science-based methodology to 

encourage the cost-effective practice of using unplanned wildfires to reduce hazardous fuels when appropriate. 

We expect that the management improvements implemented and underway will 

continue to make managers better prepared for wildfires; facilitate better decision 

making during firefighting operations; and provide the tools necessary to analyze, 

understand, and manage fire suppression costs. While the factors of drought, fuels 

build-up in our forests, and increasing development in fire prone areas have the potential to keep the number of incidents and total cost of wildfire suppression high 

for some time to come, we are confident in our strategy to address wildland fire suppression costs and are committed to action. We believe that the measures discussed 

today promise to expand efficiency and reduce suppression costs. We look forward 

to continued collaboration with our Federal, State, local, tribal, and other non-Federal partners to address our shared goal of effectively managing wildfire suppression 

costs. 

CONTINUING TRANSITIONAL SUPPORT TO RURAL COMMUNITIES THROUGH EXTENSION OF

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PAYMENTS

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of 2000 (SRS) 

(PL 106-393) was enacted to provide transitional assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from timber harvests on Federal lands. Traditionally, these counties relied on a share of receipts from timber harvests to supplement 

local funding for school systems and roads. Funding from SRS has been used to support more than 4,400 rural schools and to help maintain county road systems. In 

addition, SRS has authorized the establishment of over 55 resource advisory committees (RACs) in 13 States, which has increased the level of interaction between 

the Forest Service, local governments, and citizens—resulting in greater support 

and understanding of the agency’s mission. The Forest Service has distributed more 

than $2.5 billion dollars under this legislation since 2001 to assist counties in maintaining and improving local schools and roads. Of this amount, $213 million dollars 

have been used by RACs to implement more than 4,400 resource projects on national forests and grasslands and adjacent non-Federal lands. 

Though the Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2006, Congress extended payments for a seventh year under Public Law 110-28. The final year of payments were 

made in December 2007, and included distribution of more than $389 million in Forest Service revenue to 41 States and Puerto Rico for improvements to public schools, 

roads, and stewardship projects. 

Although Secure Rural Schools Act payments were intended to be temporary, the 

2009 Budget underscores the President’s continuing commitment to States and 

counties impacted by the ongoing loss of receipts associated with lower timber harvests on Federal lands. The Budget includes a legislative proposal that provides 

$200 million above the current baseline for a 4-year extension of USDA and Department of the Interior forest county safety net payments, which will be targeted to 

the most affected areas, capped, adjusted downward each year, and phased out. For 

administrative convenience, USDA will make the payments on behalf of both agenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
9

cies. Offsets for the Administration’s proposal are provided within the topline of the 

President’s Budget throughout the Department of Agriculture and elsewhere. For 

the 2008 payment (to be made in 2009), the Administration continues to be prepared to work with Congress to identify mutually agreeable offsets. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAM REDESIGN

The 2009 Budget focuses resources on national forest and grassland responsibilities, but it also reflects a redesigned State and Private Forestry program approach. 

Funding is provided for priority technical assistance to non-industrial private forest 

landowners and financial assistance for high priority cooperative conservation 

projects. 

The State and Private Forestry program connects the agency’s research and public 

lands-based programs to those of States and private individuals and entities. 

Through a coordinated effort in management, protection, conservation education, 

and resource use, State and Private Forestry programs help facilitate sound stewardship across lands of all ownerships on a landscape scale, while maintaining the 

flexibility for individual forest landowners to pursue their objectives. 

In FY 2007, the Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters 

agreed to redesign State and Private Forestry. The intent of the redesign is to focus 

and prioritize resources to better shape and influence forest land use on a scale and 

in a way that optimizes public benefits from trees and forests for current and future 

generations. The foundation for the redesign approach is a national assessment of 

conditions, trends, and opportunities relevant to forests of all ownerships. The initial phase of national implementation has begun, including a new competitive process for a portion of S&PF funds. The Forest Service has committed to monitor implementation of the redesign approach, facilitate an annual review, and implement 

changes as needed. 

As a result, the Forest Service will prioritize work using the best available technology and information focused on three national themes: 1) Conserve working forest landscapes; 2) Protect forests from harm; and 3) Enhance benefits from trees 

and forests. Comprehensive assessments will be conducted at the state and national 

levels to identify conditions, threats, and ecosystem services. The assessments will 

then be used to integrate program delivery with partners through a variety of tools 

and approaches and ensure appropriate skills and organizational structures are in 

place to support priority work. 

In addition, mandatory funding is proposed in the 2008 Farm Bill for purposes 

and activities similar to those supported by State and Private Forestry programs. 

The Conservation, Forestry, and Energy titles of the Farm Bill provides nearly $10 

billion in incentives to States, local governments, and nonindustrial private forest 

landowners to pursue conservation, forest restoration, and biomass energy. The 

products and process of State and Private Forestry redesign have helped focus collaborative efforts around important national priorities which will also receive significant attention and support in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

This concludes my statement; I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Domenici, and members of the committee, it’s a great privilege to be here 

today to speak with you about the President’s budget for the Forest 

Service in fiscal year 2009. Each of you have in your packets my 

written testimony covering the agency’s budget in detail. 

I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have on that testimony, but to best utilize the next couple of minutes I’m going to 

limit my verbal remarks to a couple key points I think are most 

important to today’s hearing. I’d like to request that my full statement be placed in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. First, I’d like to describe the general 

context that this budget is presented in. I certainly recognize that 

10

the Forest Service is just one small part, though a very important 

part to me, of the Federal budget. That our requests have to be balanced against competing needs and opportunities across Government for limited funds. 

It is clear from the pattern of budget requests in appropriations 

in the past several years that there are differing priorities between 

the Administration and the Congress, Though there are also many 

similar priorities. I’m here today to present the President’s budget 

request and explain his rationale. 

It is important to explain how we as an agency have crafted the 

budget proposal in front of you now. It is helpful for me to visualize 

things in a tangible, practical way. So I see our budget as a bucket. 

A bucket only has a certain size. It only holds so much. In our 

case, the size of the bucket is decided after the nation’s highest priorities are taken care of, such as supporting the war on terror, 

strengthening homeland security, and promoting sustained economic growth. 

With support of those priorities in mind, our Forest Service buck- et is $4.109 billion in size, about the same size as last year’s request. It is about $380 million below what was appropriated for 

this current fiscal year. Our bucket starts a little smaller, but it 

also has to hold some programs that are a little bigger than last 

year. 

The fire suppression request is decided by the 10-year average of 

fire suppression costs in an arrangement agreed to by both Congress and the Administration. The 10-year average this year is 

$994 million, $250 million dollars higher than just 2 years ago and 

nearly $150 million more than the current enacted level. Because 

fire suppression is the first thing in the bucket, because it is considerably higher than in past years, and because the bucket is only 

so big, other programs needed to be reduced to make up the difference. 

Rather than simply ratchet all programs down by a similar percentage to make up that difference, this budget reflects a very difficult, strategic decision. We’re focusing limited resources on core 

National Forest System programs since we are the sole landlord for 

these lands. As a consequence, there is significant reductions in the 

request for State and Private Forestry programs and a reduction 

in Forest Service Research. 

In spite of these difficult cuts, I strongly believe that the Forest 

Service continues to be a good investment for the funds we receive. 

In 2007, we received our sixth clean audit opinion in a row. We 

have reduced our indirect cost to less than 10 percent of our total 

expenses. 

We have increased partnership contributions to challenge cost 

share projects by 35 percent over those of 2006. We collected over 

$700 million in revenues and receipts. Forest Service scientists 

filed two patents. Thirteen Forest Service scientists were recognized by the Nobel Committee as sharing in the Nobel Peace Prize 

this year for their work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. 

We maintained 60,000 miles of road. With partners across the 

country, we maintained 26,000 miles of trail. We sold 2.5 billion 

board feet of timber. 

11

We reduced hazardous fuels on 3 million acres. We provided fire 

assistance grants to about 62,000 communities. We protected over 

88,000 acres of forestland from conversion with our Forest Legacy 

Program. The list can go on. 

We are positioned to make the most of the resources we receive. 

Our agency is in the midst of a difficult, but necessary transformation which will ensure a higher percentage of our funds go to 

the field. We are encouraging our managers to focus on integrating 

programs and working with partners to achieve multiple objectives. 

We are proposing some innovative ecosystem services demonstration projects that will forge important partnerships with States, 

local governments, tribes, and non-profit organizations to restore, 

enhance, and protect ecosystem function on National Forest System 

lands. 

The Forest Service mission is relevant. We have a leading role 

in issues affecting the Nation and the world. We have dedicated, 

professional, and very hard working employees who come to work 

every day looking for better ways to solve complex problems. 

I am confident we add value to the resources with the taxpayer 

funds you invest in us. Thank you for the opportunity to describe 

how this budget was formulated, and why I’m optimistic about our 

future. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a great privilege to be here 

today to discuss the President’s budget for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2009. 

One year ago, sitting here before you discussing the fiscal year 2008 budget was one 

of my first public acts as Chief of the Forest Service. I am grateful for the support 

this committee has shown the Forest Service, and over the past year I have been 

able to see firsthand many of the issues raised by its members. I look forward to 

our dialogue today. 

I can report to you that the state of the Forest Service is sound. The agency continues to sustain and restore the national forests and grasslands. Our researchers 

continue to push the frontiers of knowledge, and 13 have been recognized by the 

Nobel Prize panel for their efforts. Our partnerships with other Federal agencies, 

States, communities, and tribes have broadened and deepened, as together, we have 

faced growing threats from fire and other disturbances. The outstanding competence 

and professionalism of our employees is admired by forestry organizations around 

the world. Entering the second century of service, the Forest Service can reflect with 

pride on its accomplishments. 

Yet for all these achievements, the Forest Service faces significant issues, and can 

do better. The issues are every bit as challenging as those faced by our predecessors. 

America’s population will likely increase nearly 40 percent in the next 50 years 

(2007 World Population Data Sheet; Population Reference Bureau), and pressures 

on the land will increase and change. In an era of globalization, the world is shrinking, jobs are growing more complex, and the value of forests and grasslands is greater than ever. 

Among the challenges and opportunities facing our agency, three themes stand 

out in particular: climate change; water issues; and the loss of connection to nature, 

especially for kids. I truly believe that history will judge my leadership of the Forest 

Service by how well we as an agency respond to these challenges, and the 2009 

budget is crafted with that in mind. 

The FY 2009 Forest Service budget request totals $4.1 billion in discretionary appropriations, an 8 percent decrease from the FY 2008 enacted level. The President’s 

Budget reflects our Nation’s highest priorities including supporting our troops, 

strengthening our homeland security, and promoting sustained economic growth. 

The Administration’s pro-growth economic policies, coupled with spending restraint, 

are key to keeping us on track to continue to reduce the deficit in the coming years. 

12

Within the framework of the agency’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan and the themes 

I’ve laid out, the Forest Service budget for 2009 focuses on core responsibilities, 

maintaining program effectiveness, and addressing on-going management challenges. The 2009 budget aligns Forest Service spending to reinforce the agency’s 

commitment to caring for the 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, 

and providing for the highest priority activities that can demonstrate performance 

in a transparent manner. 

HEALTHY FORESTS

The FY 2009 Forest Service budget focuses resources on maximizing the effectiveness of core national forest and grassland programs. Implementation of the Healthy 

Forests Initiative and the Northwest Forest Plan are key initiatives which receive 

increased or similar levels of funding compared to FY 2008 enacted—Forest Products is requested at $323 million, Hazardous Fuels at $297 million, and Vegetation 

& Watershed Management at $165 million. These investments will yield over 7.0 

million CCF (3.5 billion board feet) of timber volume sold, including 1.6 million CCF 

(800 million board feet) of timber volume offered from full implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Other priority program outputs include establishing or improving over 2 million acres of forest and rangeland vegetation, and 1.5 million 

acres of hazardous fuel reduction, with an additional 800,000 acres of treatments 

accomplished by other land management activities to reduce fire risk. Capital Improvement and Maintenance of Roads is requested at $227 million to provide the 

necessary infrastructure to support priority program activities and manage the 

roads system on national forest lands. 

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY & TRANSFORMATION

The Forest Service is continuing its restructuring process that will improve its organizational structure and maximize resources available for on-the-ground mission 

delivery. Our current organizational structure, designed in the 1950s, does not take 

advantage of the communication technologies and integrated operating systems 

available in today’s business environment. By the end of FY 2009, the Forest Service will reduce operating costs by approximately 25 percent in the regional offices 

and the national headquarters. This will result in a higher proportion of funds going 

to the field and an organizational structure better equipped to meet the natural resource management challenges of the 21st century. 

RECOGNIZING INTEGRATED PROGRAM AND PARTNERSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Another strategy to ensure maximum on-the-ground achievements relates to accomplishment tracking. In FY 2008, the Forest Service is changing reporting rules 

to incorporate accomplishments achieved through integration between program 

areas and/or partnerships with external groups. This change is designed to shift 

from a program-by-program approach to one that aligns programs and partner organizations to achieve multiple goals. By changing how accomplishments are counted, 

the agency hopes to change how managers plan and implement their work, increase 

incentives for working with partners, and ensure maximum value per dollar of Federal expenditure. 

Under Secretary Rey addressed Wildland Fire Management in his testimony. I 

will now discuss the program budget requests for the Research, State and Private 

Forestry, National Forest System, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, and 

Land Acquisition accounts. 

FOREST & RANGELAND RESEARCH

The Forest Service Research Program is a globally recognized leader developing 

scientific information and technologies that address the ecological, biological, social, 

and economic issues challenging natural resource management and conservation in 

the modern era. Approximately 500 Forest Service scientists conduct this research 

at 67 sites located throughout the United States. The 2009 Budget funds Research 

at $263 million. This is equal to the 2008 President’s budget, and an 8 percent decrease from the enacted level of $286 million. The budget eliminates funding for congressional earmarks, employs investment criteria to align research projects with 

strategic priorities, and retains support of the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $62.3 million. 

Forest Service Research & Development is a world leader on the global climate 

change issue. Thirteen Forest Service scientists participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize 

with former Vice President Al Gore. 

13

The FY 2009 budget includes $31 million for research on how climate change, air 

and water pollution, land use, and extreme events affect forest and rangeland sustainability and the associated benefits they provide to society. In addition, the program prioritizes research in the areas of Resource Management and Use ($79 million), Invasive Species ($30 million), and Wildland Fire and Fuels ($23 million). 

STATE & PRIVATE FORESTRY

Consistent with the focus on core responsibilities, the 2009 Budget proposes to reduce funding for State and Private Forestry in order to focus resources on management of the federally-owned assets of the National Forest System. Funding is provided for priority technical assistance to non-industrial private forest landowners 

and financial assistance for high priority cooperative conservation projects. Specifically, the 2009 Budget funds State and Private Forestry at $110 million, a decrease 

of 58 percent from the 2008 enacted level. Forest Health programs, including those 

funded under the National Fire Plan, will receive almost $80 million and treat over 

450,000 forest and rangeland acres for invasive and native pests with a focus on 

early detection, evaluation, and monitoring of new invasive species, such as the 

Sirex wood wasp, emerald ash borer, and sudden oak death. Cooperative Fire programs, including those funded under the National Fire Plan, will receive nearly $75 

million and assist over 18,000 communities through grants to State and local fire 

agencies. In addition, $25 million will fund the Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, 

Urban & Community Forestry, and International Forestry programs. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

The National Forest System account provides funds for the stewardship and management of national forests and grasslands. The 2009 Budget requests $1.345 billion 

for this account, which is equal to the 2008 President’s Budget request, but a decrease of $125 million or 9 percent from the enacted level. This budget level reflects 

successful implementation of the organizational efficiency and transformation efforts 

which will direct a higher proportion of funds to on-theground mission-critical work. 

The 2009 budget includes a legislative proposal authorizing five Ecosystems Services Demonstration Projects that will bring new partners together with the Forest 

Service in a broad effort to advance market-based conservation. States, local governments, tribes, or non-profit organizations will have the opportunity to provide up to 

$10 million of funds or in-kind services for activities that restore, enhance, and protect ecosystem function on National Forest System lands. The projects will also introduce and refine methodologies that may be used in potential or emerging markets to quantify and value ecosystem services related to clean water, carbon sequestration, and other critical benefits. 

Other important National Forest System programs are increased in the FY 2009 

budget. As mentioned earlier, the fiscal year 2009 budget supports full funding for 

the Northwest Forest Plan within the $323 million for Forest Products. Land Management Planning funding is proposed at $53 million, an 8 percent increase from 

the 2008 enacted level. The additional funds will focus on implementation of the revised Planning Rule, acceleration of work on 35 planned Land Management Plan 

(LMP) amendments that respond to energy corridor decisions, and completion of 18 

LMP revisions currently scheduled for FY 2009. 

A number of National Forest System programs will be maintained at the FY 2008 

President’s Budget level including, $146 million for Inventory and Monitoring programs to facilitate efficient implementation of the 2008 Planning Rule, which establishes Environmental Management Systems on each NFS unit. The Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness programs are proposed at $237 million, which will enable 

completion of travel management plans for 86 percent of National Forest System 

lands and Recreation Facility Analyses on 74 percent of national forests by the end 

of FY 2009. Wildlife & Fish Management, funded at $118 million, will focus on continued partnerships with states, non-governmental organizations and tribes to actively manage wildlife and fisheries habitat for the benefit of the 36 million people 

that visit national forests and grasslands annually to hunt, fish, or view wildlife. 

The $47 million funding request for Grazing Management will support effective 

management of rangeland resources on approximately 90 million acres of NFS lands 

and compliance with the Rescissions Act schedule for completed grazing allotments. 

The $115 million request for Law Enforcement Operations, a $17 million decrease, 

will be focused on combating drug-trafficking organizations along the Southwestern 

and Northern borders, responding to emergency and life-threatening situations, and 

conducting arson investigations. 

14

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & MAINTENANCE

The Capital Improvement & Maintenance Program maintains the infrastructure 

for many Forest Service programs, including the transportation networks necessary 

for management and visitor access; the recreational infrastructure, including trails 

that serve many diverse populations; and facilities that house Forest Service employees. The 2009 Budget funds Capital Improvement & Maintenance at $406 million, a decrease of $69 million from the enacted level, which included a $25 million 

one-time transfer from the Purchaser Election Program. The $120 million proposed 

in Facilities funding will support maintenance of approximately 22,500 facilities and 

capital improvement of 34 facilities in FY 2009. The $227 million Roads program 

includes maintenance of more than 70,000 miles, reconstruction and capital improvement of 2,000 miles, and decommissioning of approximately 600 miles of Forest Service roads. Approximately 17,300 miles of trails will be maintained and 700 

miles relocated or constructed with the $50 million Trails request. Legacy Roads & 

Trails, established by Congress in 2008 as a change to a mandatory program that 

redirected $25 million in funds from purchaser elect road fund, is not included in 

the discretionary budget. Funding for purchaser elect roads is provided through 

mandatory funding, as authorized. 

CONCLUSION

I present this budget within a management environment that demands more than 

dollars to ensure organizational success. The budget supports national priorities of 

deficit reduction, maintains a safe and effective fire suppression organization, and 

maintains other high priority programs. Just as importantly, it proposes an ecosystem services approach to on-the-ground work in partnership with key stakeholders to protect watersheds, enhance economic and social values, and improve biodiversity. Combined with State & Private Forestry redesign, Wildland Fire Management reforms, and organizational management transformation, this suite of initiatives will enable the Forest Service to continue to deliver outstanding science and 

effectively manage the resources of the national forests and grasslands, while adapting to the challenges of the coming decades.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Let me start with a few 

questions. Could we put up that chart again? The one that’s the pie 

charts that tries to compare Forest Service fire budget with the 

non-fire budget. I think everyone’s got a copy of that. There’s a 

copy at each Senator’s desk. 

To me this chart makes a couple of very important points. I 

think I’d point out first of all that Congress has, in my view, very 

wisely provided the Forest Service with about $430 million more 

than the 10-year average for fire suppression in the current year. 

So the Administration’s request is really that we cut funding for 

that area by about $280 million from the current level, as I understand things. If any of that is wrong, please correct me. 

I think what this chart says to me is we’ve got two big problems 

that have, over a period of years, dramatically reduced our ability 

to adequately fund the non-fire suppression part of the Forest Service. One of those problems is that we try to fund wildfire suppression within the Forest Service budget. That means that as the demand for funding for wildfire suppression goes up each year, as it 

has, the money left for the Forest Service to use for other purposes 

goes down. 

That’s a very major problem which we talk about each year. We 

do nothing about it. The Administration has proposed nothing to 

solve it that I’m aware of that has any real substance to it. Of 

course those of us in Congress talk about it as well. 

The second big problem is that we are using this 10-year rolling 

average. Chief Kimbell, you indicated this is something that the 

Congress has agreed to as a reasonable thing to do. I certainly 

didn’t agree to that. Maybe someone else did. 

15

We had Secretary Kempthorne in front of the committee yesterday talking about the Department of Interior budget. He made the 

obvious point that if you used a fire 5-year average rather than a 

10-year average, you’d have more money. You’d have to appropriate 

more money each year. 

It would seem to me that that would be a logical thing to do. 

Maybe even a less than 5-year average would make sense. But I’d 

be interested first, I guess, in you, Secretary Rey, your thoughts as 

to how we solve each of these problems. What can we do to cordon 

off the non-fire part of the Forest Service budget so that it doesn’t 

continue to get eaten away? Second, what can we do to get a more 

reasonable method for calculating how much to put in for wildfire 

suppression rather than this 10-year average. 

Mr. REY. First, let me offer some distinctions that will be helpful 

in focusing the conversation. When we talk about the fire portion 

of the Forest Service budget, we’re talking about three major 

things. Fuels reduction work is something we can plan for and do, 

and something we’re trying to increase, not as a matter of happenstance, but as a matter of specific design. That produces some other 

good outcomes as well. 

Preparedness, which is also something you can plan for in deciding how much you’re going to spend to be prepared for an upcoming season. Third, actual suppression, which you were correct, is 

not something that you can plan for easily, is subject to the vagaries of what happens in a given year, has been increasing dramatically and is funded using a rolling 10-year average. So I think it’s 

probably helpful to parse those into three pieces because the one, 

I think that would be most helpful to focus on is suppression. 

Then the question you’ve asked which is the correct question is, 

is there a better way to pay for suppression than using a rolling 

10-year average and being subject then to an automatic increase 

that’s increasing? Along with that is the responsibility to borrow 

from other funds if that average is exceeded as it has been in some 

of the last several years. 

We did propose an alternative in the 2003 budget cycle to basically pay for suppression or at least a substantial portion of suppression out of a Governmentwide emergency contingency fund. 

There wasn’t a lot of, among the Appropriations Committees in the 

House and the Senate, there wasn’t a lot of interest in that proposal. Perhaps because it was a government wide contingency, perhaps because we wanted a portion of it offset, perhaps for other 

reasons. 

We’re fully prepared to resuscitate that proposal. Sit down and 

discuss it with the committee. I think it has much to recommend 

it as an alternative to the current approach. That having been said, 

the current approach is not ideal, but it has allowed us to effectively continue to extinguish 98 percent of fires on initial attack as 

well as have the resources available to deal with extended attack. 

Even though, you’re correct, that effectiveness has come at the expense of other programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief Kimbell, did you have any comment on 

that? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Some of the numbers, Chairman, that you were referring to, I believe include emergency and supplemental approVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
16

priations. We are very appreciative of having those because it has 

allowed us to then continue with some programs and to take fewer 

funds from other programs. So we’ve been very appreciative of that. 

We are absolutely willing to work with the committee on the further development of any ideas on how to have a different future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask one other question before I’ve 

given up here. The Forest Service has not been reimbursed for 

more than $500 million that was borrowed from Forest Service accounts to fund unbudgeted, emergency fire fighting in recent years. 

As a result, we have many programs and projects that were funded 

by Congress that were never able to carry out. 

In the past, the Administration opposed some of our efforts to reimburse the Forest Service for such borrowing with Administration 

support, reimbursing the Forest Service for those emergency expenses and if not, why not? 

Mr. REY. I think the debate over reimbursements in the past 

have focused on one area. The Administration, has concurred with 

reimbursements for project level expenses, for infrastructure investments, for program funding that was unfortunately borrowed to 

fight fire. Where we have demurred in seeking reimbursement is 

in personnel expenses. 

So, for instance, when a person who’s normally employed on a 

national forest and is paid for under one of the National Forest 

System accounts goes out and takes a fire assignment, his salary 

during the period of time that he’s on the fire assignment is 

charged to the fire account. So that employee is paid, there’s no 

need to reimburse the National Forest system account for the loss 

of that salary. That’s, I think, the main area where we’ve disagreed 

in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici. Let me just say I’m going to 

have to run to another hearing, but I believe Senator Salazar will 

be able to preside here for a period of time while I’m gone. Thank 

you. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Salazar, if you need help, I’ll help 

you. 

Senator SALAZAR. I don’t think——

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. I’m just kidding. He knew that. 

But he’s a pretty serious guy. 

Well, let me first dwell just a little bit on Valles Caldera. We 

paid a lot of money for that. It’s beautiful property. Having said 

what I did in my opening statement, could you explain the logic of 

not funding Valles Caldera in fiscal year 2009? 

Mr. REY. I’ll try. First a clarification, we’re not proposing to fund 

the Valles Caldera in 2009 at zero. We’re proposing to eliminate 

the specific earmark of funding dedicated exclusively to the Valles 

Caldera. 

Senator DOMENICI. Right. 

Mr. REY. We will continue to fund the Valles Caldera as part of 

the overall Region 3 budget allocation. So, they’ll continue to get 

funding, competing with the other units of Region 3 within the 

overall Region 3 budget. 

Now the question is why did we eliminate the earmark? 

17

Senator DOMENICI. Before you do that let me stop you. What 

does that mean, what you just said? Do they get money to do 

things? 

Mr. REY. They’ll get money but it would be a substantially lower 

amount and it would be on a basis of——

Senator DOMENICI. Lower than what? 

Mr. REY. Lower than the $3.2 million plus the additional money 

that we’ve paid for in terms of firefighting on Valles Caldera. 

Senator DOMENICI. Which we put in. 

Mr. REY. Right. Exactly. 

Senator DOMENICI. You don’t think $3.2 million for 100,000 acres 

of land to do what we charge them to do is excessive do you? 

Mr. REY. Unfortunately, I think at this point in history, it is excessive. 

Senator DOMENICI. It’s what? 

Mr. REY. It is excessive, if we look at what it’s costing to manage 

the Valles Caldera on a per acre basis. Last year it cost $41 per 

acre to manage that land. 

The Santa Fe National Forest which surrounds the Caldera managed its holdings exclusive of wilderness, for 14 dollars an acre. 

You know, on my side of the dais, you sometimes manage to trends. 

If the trends are going in the wrong direction, then it’s time to stop 

and take stock. 

In this case, that trend is going in the wrong direction. That $41 

per acre was higher than the number the year before which is 

about $37 an acre. The number on the Santa Fe was actually lower 

than it was the year before, which suggests, at least superficially, 

that costs are going up on the Caldera while they’re going down in 

other units of the National Forest System immediately adjacent to 

the Caldera with similar land types as a result of efficiencies. 

I met with the Caldera’s board last week because, as you might 

guess, they’re quite upset about this. What strikes me is that this 

is probably an area where we ought to do some oversight this year. 

Some of the assumptions that we started with in the 2000 legislation, where at which point I was on that side of the dais, aren’t 

holding out. The idea that they would be able to manage in a fashion that wasn’t encumbered by a lot of Federal agency processes 

isn’t necessarily coming to pass. 

The idea that they could manage, in some respects, as a Federal 

trust enjoying the Federal Government’s rights isn’t coming to pass 

in that area; to wit, the State has taken the position that they’ll 

regulate hunting on the Caldera, and that the Caldera trust cannot 

charge a premium for trophy elk hunting as any private land 

owner, any other trust, in the State of New Mexico could. 

So I think there’s some things we could do that we ought to 

maybe spend this year working on. 

Senator DOMENICI. Let me just stop you. So we’ll get this $41 understood a little better. You have never recommended nor given 

voluntarily as an Administration any amount close to $41 an acre. You recommended $850,000, 1 year. That’s not $41 an acre. 

Right? 

Mr. REY. No. $41 an acre is given the totality of what was appropriated and what they raised. What it’s costing them to manage 

the land. 

18

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. This is the first time I ever heard that 

they’re spending too much with what they’ve got to manage and 

keep up. Sounds incredible to me, but we’ll pass on that for a 

minute and go on to something else. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator, might I add a comment? 

Senator DOMENICI. Sure. 

Ms. KIMBELL. The $41 per acre might not be excessive, but it is 

considerably different from any other National Forest System unit. 

The contrast of $41 for the Valles Caldera National Forest System 

unit with the $14 for the non-wilderness acres on the Santa Fe National Forest is just that. It’s a comparison. Forty-one dollars might 

be the right number for the whole National Forest System, but it’s 

not the current reality. 

Senator DOMENICI. Ma’am, I hope you all aren’t trying to pile on 

the Caldera because you don’t run it. The truth of the matter is it 

was not intended to be like Santa Fe National Forest. It was not 

intended to be like the other forests that surround it. It was intended to be something different, a living, breathing ranch. You understand that’s different than a giant forest. 

They’re supposed to have experience for people of ranch living. 

They’re supposed to have ranch activities. They’re supposed to 

raise money like private sector people do from hunting and fishing. 

They are not given the right privileges to raise money in those 

ways because everybody sticks their nose into their business and 

makes it difficult. 

It’s difficultfor some of us who worked so hard to get this beautiful property. It’s getting kind of hard when the Boards can’t find 

any way to build any roads or any infrastructure. Nobody is objecting to that anymore. You’ve got to do that if you’re going to have 

30, 40,000 people a year. I mean, you all know that if any of you 

have been up there. So that’s enough of that one anyway. 

This budget proposal suggests that 48 percent of the Forest Service discretionary budget will be used to pay for the wildland fire 

budget. I know that you proposed to reduce the fire preparedness 

line item by $77 million, and yet you are going to maintain the 

same number of firefighters, aircraft, water tankers, and other fire 

fighting vehicles that you may have had in the past. 

What other programs within fire preparedness line are being cut to maintain the fire fighters equipment and still capture the $77 

million reduction? 

Mr. REY. As I indicated in my prepared statement, as a consequence of a number of cost containment reforms that we’ve made, 

we believe we saved somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million last year in comparison to what we projected our expenses 

would be. Those cost containment reforms are what are reflected 

in the reduction in the preparedness account. For instance, in 

changing the way we contract for aircraft last year, we saved $14 

million by going to a higher number of exclusive use versus call 

when needed aircraft. 

That didn’t necessarily change the actual number of aircraft. It 

just changed how we use them and what contract mechanisms we 

use to retain them. So what you see in that reduction in the suppression account is a reflection of what we think the cost savings 

measures that we’ve enacted will provide. 

19

Now you could ask a question, well isn’t it a little risky to bank 

on that? The answer is, it is, except that the Appropriations Committees have given the authority to use suppression money if we 

fall short in preparedness. So we thought it was reasonable to reflect these cost savings. They were hard won in many cases. Then 

if something runs amiss we’ll——

Senator Salazar [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you, Under Secretary Rey. We need to get on with Senator Tester and then Senator Barrasso. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here today to talk about the budget. The first question is for 

Secretary Rey. I want to refer you to page two of your testimony, 

the first paragraph, the bottom sentence. You refer to this in your 

verbal testimony too. 

It says, despite more fires than in 2006 and a 49 percent increase in acres burned, the cost of suppressing Forest Service fires is $127 

million lower in 2007 due to aggressive implementation of appropriate management response and other cost containment measures. 

That sentence in and of itself is diametrically opposed to one another. You had almost a 50 percent increase in acres burned and 

you spent $127 million less and that’s a plus? That’s a good thing? 

Mr. REY. It can be. We’re not happy about the 49 percent increase in acres burned. But it would not have been less acres 

burned had we lavished another $127 million in expenditures trying to put out fires. 

Senator TESTER. So you’re saying there’s no correlation between 

the dollars you had to fight fires and the ability to put fires out? 

Mr. REY. No. There’s not a direct correlation between the amount 

of money we spend and the acres burned. The reason for that is 

a couple of folds. 

One is in many cases we used wildland fire use as a management tool to allow fires to burn where there is nothing ecologically 

or economically threatened. 

Senator TESTER. I understand that. 

Mr. REY. That’s going to result in a large increase in acres irrespective of cost. 

Senator TESTER. It would be a 49 percent increase from year to 

year to let the fires burn for ecological purposes? 

Mr. REY. No. That’s only a portion of the increase. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. I’m looking at this budget and I see the Forest Service being severely hamstrung by the amount of money that 

they use on forest firefighting. I think it takes away from their 

ability to manage. I look at this budget and I see a decrease in the 

dollars that are set aside for forest firefighting. It tells me you’re 

going to have to find that money somewhere else. 

Mr. REY. No. The dollars for fire suppression are increasing. The 

dollars for fire suppression and preparedness overall are increasing. Dollars for preparedness are less. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. What I’m talking about is fighting the fires. 

Mr. REY. That’s suppression. 

Senator TESTER. Those dollars are increasing? 

Mr. REY. Correct. 

Senator TESTER. From FY 2008? 

Mr. REY. From FY 2008 enacted to FY 2009 proposed. Yes. 

20

Senator TESTER. FY 2008 it shows wildland fire management. We’re talking about a different fund here, $2.5 billion, approximately in your request, $500 million less. 

Mr. REY. In that 2.5 billion you’re considering the 

supplementals? 

Senator TESTER. Absolutely. Didn’t you spend that money? 

Mr. REY. As well as carry over. 

Senator TESTER. Didn’t you spend that money? 

Mr. REY. True. But we budget suppression at a rolling 10-year 

average. We factored all of that into the 10-year average and that 

average is what we plug in as a budget number. 

Senator TESTER. This is no reflection on you guys, but this budget is very frustrating to me. I’ve got to tell you what, if I budgeted 

on my farm the way this is budgeted, I’d never get the crops in the 

ground. I’d never be able to harvest a crop. 

The Department of Energy was in here last week and talked 

about the fact that conservation doesn’t make any sense. That is 

basically what the guy said to me. So they cut it. It doesn’t make 

any sense. Cutting that budget line item doesn’t make any sense. 

We’re sitting here looking at a Forest Service that’s having a difficult time managing an incredible resource that this country has 

because they’re spending so much of their budget on firefighting. 

We come back with decreasing that line item. 

Mr. REY. You know, there again, in the way these budgets are 

developed, that’s not a decrease. That’s an increase. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. 

Mr. REY. You don’t know. You know, this fire year we could have 

rain from June to August as we did in 2004. We could spend a substantially lower amount of money in firefighting as we did in 2004. 

Nobody knows that building a budget. 

Senator TESTER. You’re right. Take the other 9 years in the last 

10-year period. You’ve got a 90 percent chance this next year being 

a disaster. I can tell you that the snow pack is really good right 

now in Montana, but that could change overnight and we all know 

that. 

The last 10 years we have seen significant changes in our climate. Do you take that into consideration? Do you take the beetle 

kill into consideration? Do you take disease into consideration 

when you’re planning out this budget? 

I think we’re one lightning strike and a good wind away from 

burning down the whole damn State. 

Mr. REY. There again, you know, we can talk about an alternative to the rolling 10-year average, but it’s going to be no less 

or no more arbitrary in predicting the future 2 years out. 

Senator TESTER. You don’t have to do this today, but I think Senator Bingaman’s point was good. Could you get me a list of the legislators that agreed to that 10-year average? 

Mr. REY. I’d say the list is of everybody of voted ‘‘aye’’ in each 

of the last 20 years of appropriations. 

Senator TESTER. Oh my goodness. 

Mr. REY. I mean that’s the embodied assumption in the appropriation’s bills. 

Senator TESTER. I will tell you that I’m not going to whack your 

budget out because I don’t agree with the 10-year average. I’m not 

21

going to vote against your budget because I don’t agree with the 

10-year average. But to make that assumption is absolutely not 

correct. That’s incorrect. It’s stretching it to the max. 

I can tell you that and I’ll get off this, but I can tell you and I 

think Chief Kimbell knows. She’s been up in that neck of the 

woods. The forest fire season last year was terrible. It wasn’t your 

fault. It was Mother Nature doing it. 

But we have to have the ability to manage our forests. You’ve got 

to have money to manage the forests. When all your money is going 

to firefighting, The bucket is small. There’s a lot of things there. 

But the truth is maybe we need to figure out ways to make the 

bucket a little bit bigger or we’re going to lose the resource. That’s 

my concern. It’s got to be yours too. 

Mr. REY. We share that concern. As I said, we’re happy to look 

at alternatives. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. Thanks. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you——

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Mr. Secretary for being here. I’m going to try to get to three 

questions if I could. 

The first has to do with the lumber market collapse which we’re 

experiencing. We’ve seen saw mill closures across the West—recently one in Sheridan, Wyoming. These are important pillars of 

our community all across the West and certainly in Wyoming. The 

last time we had a similar crisis the Forest Service took on a policy 

of increasing timber sales in an effort to help its private industry 

partners. Could you at all address what your plans might be as we 

look at this situation? 

Mr. REY. I think the immediate task at hand is to look at the 

timber we’ve already sold in a high market which the operators are 

having trouble operating at a profit. We have some administrative 

authority to re-adjust and extend the terms of those contracts so 

that we don’t drive them into insolvency by forcing them to operate 

to the terms of their contract. We’re approaching the end of our administrative authority. 

The House included in its version of the Farm bill a provision 

that would extend that authority that the Administration supports. 

So that would be the most immediate need to deal with in this 

area, I think. 

Senator BARRASSO. Can I get the next issue in the Energy bill? 

There was a definition in the Energy bill of biomass, and I found 

it very troubling because the definition excludes Federal lands. If 

you could explain how this definition is going to affect forest health 

management and how that may have an affect on your budget and 

your thoughts of this definition? 

Mr. REY. This—the definition you’re referring to came in the 

House Energy bill. The definition that this committee worked on, 

particularly Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, and others, we found 

quite helpful and met the needs of protecting valuable old growth 

species while still allowing us to use biomass on the national forest 

to produce energy. The House definition was adopted. It will essentially preclude us from producing any biomass energy from fiber off 

of national forest lands, which will prevent us from being able to 

22

reduce the cost of fuels treatment, which is what we’d hoped to do 

with this biomass provision. 

Senator BARRASSO. Then just a third and final question. The 

service has received several court rulings on the bighorn sheep 

management recently. In Wyoming we’ve encountered several differences of opinion on the management of these animals. 

The Forest Service’s traditional role in wildlife management has 

been to depend on the State wildlife managers to set the objectives 

and to advise management decisions that benefit wildlife. It seems 

that the role is changing and the Service is asserting management 

authority over wildlife. Is that the case? Is the Forest Service pursuing a new role in wildlife management? 

Mr. REY. Forest Service does not desire a new role in wildlife 

management. We’re quite happy and comfortable with the traditional role of managing the habitat while the States manage fish 

and game populations. That having been said, increasingly the 

courts have thrust us into a more active role in actually managing 

wildlife populations particularly where the populations involved either threatened or endangered or sensitive species. That’s a constant source of tension as court cases develop. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

ranking member who are here. Let me just say to both of you, 

Chief Kimbell and Under Secretary Rey, I appreciate the efforts 

that you’ve undertaken with Senator Enzi, Senator Barrasso, myself, Senator Thune, Senator Allard, and others to try to get more 

of an equity with respect to the distribution of funds into Region 

2. I think there has been progress. I want to at the outset just say, 

thank you for those efforts. 

Let me ask you then a question that is probably the hottest question in Colorado today continuing on from the last several years. 

That’s the epidemic of the bark beetle, where we now have over a 

million and a half acres of lodgepole pine that’s estimated, by some 

of the scientists that have looked at it, that within 3 years, 90 percent of all the lodgepole pine within the State of Colorado is going 

to be dead, infected by the bark beetle. It’s not just a Colorado 

problem. 

It has spread very much to the North into Wyoming. It’s hit 

Montana. It’s hit Idaho. We introduced legislation last year as a 

Colorado delegation, Senator Allard and I did, to try to move forward with some concepts to try to deal with this epidemic that I 

think I called at the time the potential for a Katrina of the West. 

This is going to continue. So my question to you, Chief Kimbell 

and Under Secretary Rey, is ‘‘Are there legislative measures that 

you think we should take on to try to address this bark beetle epidemic?’’ Why don’t I start with you Under Secretary Rey and then 

Chief Kimbell. 

Mr. REY. I think the legislation that the delegation introduced 

last year had much to recommend it. We’d be eager to work with 

you again this year to see if enactment could take place, given the 

nature of this epidemic and the quality of the raw material involved in terms of being able to be utilized for some end use. 

23

The single most useful legislative change that you could make 

would be a change to the contracting rules that allow us to write 

longer term contracts, stewardship contracts, without having to 

hold back a substantial amount of money to deal with liability associated with non-performance in those contracts. That’s kind of a 

complicated issue to spit out in simple terms. But it is the one——

Senator SALAZAR. Let me just say on that. That was in one of the 

sections of the legislation which we crafted last year to try to deal 

with stewardship contracts. 

Mr. REY. That was the——

Senator SALAZAR. It’s essential if we’re going to get it done. I 

want us to be proactive on this because otherwise, frankly, I think 

in 2, 3 years from now people who look at my great State of Colorado with its great beauty across the Western slope are going to 

be seeing nothing but lots of dead forests. The national forests in 

my State comprise about 20 percent of the entire land mass of Colorado. So your role in helping us deal with that epidemic and leading us in an effective way to help deal with that epidemic is important. 

Let me ask you a question on the budget. We have, you know, 

several hundred, almost 200,000, acres of land that have been approved for hazardous fuels treatment within Colorado. Yet we have 

some decreases here in the budget with respect to hazardous fuels 

treatment. How are we going to get that acreage that has been approved for hazardous fuel treatment actually treated so that we can 

help address this problem? 

Mr. REY. In 2008 we actually gave Colorado a fairly significant 

increase, about 12 percent increase in hazardous fuels money. So, 

insofar as the specific allocation to Colorado is concerned, we did 

pretty well in 2008. In 2009, there is a slight decrease, but that’s 

a slight decrease off of record levels of spending. The important 

thing in 2009 will be to get the final number once we’re done with 

this appropriations cycle and then allocate it as effectively as we 

can. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mark and Chief Kimbell, I look forward to 

working with you on that issue. For me, when I travel down I–70 

over Rabbit Ears Pass and Steamboat and Grand County down 

through the Winter Park area—those treasures for Colorado are 

important from an ecosystem point of view. 

They are important to us from an economic point of view. I will 

do everything I can to make sure that we’re addressing that issue. 

But it’s going to have to be done in absolute partnership and collaboration with the United States Forest Service. Thank you very 

much. Next on line is Senator Craig. I think was next and then 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chief 

Kimbell, I’ve not had a chance to say this publicly before the committee, congratulations. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. We’re glad you’re with us. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Too, certainly, Secretary Rey, thank you for being 

with us this morning. 

24

I wanted to put up this chart. It’s an interesting chart. It goes 

from 2001 to 2007. My colleague from Montana was just talking 

about his frustration that goes on in Montana. Everything that’s 

red, is dead. Ok? By that I mean it’s burned. So it’s really dead. 

It’s not bug killed dead and standing. It’s down. It’s ashes. From 

2001 to 2007. 

Could you go up and point out those two fires in Montana, the 

Rat and the Pattengail? I think they were on the Beaverhead and 

the Deer Lodge. 20,000 acres last year a piece. The smoke jumpers 

said we’re not going in there. It’s too dangerous. Too much fuel, it’s 

too hot. We’re staying out. 

So we watched them burn all summer, nearly all summer until 

the snow flew. That happened across the West. Look at the core of 

Idaho, nearly all red. That’s primarily the Payette, some of the 

Boise, a lot of it’s wilderness and roadless. That’s where the initial 

attacks are failing at a high percentage. 

So there’s reason to be extremely frustrated. 1910, a few lightning strikes and a good wind, Idaho, Montana, Idaho all the way 

into the State of Washington, 3 million acres, just like that and a 

community and lives. So I think the Senator from Montana has a 

reason to be frustrated because the skies in Montana and the skies 

of Idaho nearly all last summer were well below air quality standards because of forest fires that were constantly burning. 

That’s an awfully hard thing for anyone to take let alone the argument that it’s nature at her best. I would suggest it is nature 

at her worst. But at the same time it’s the reality that we’re facing 

today. So, 25 percent of the fires that burned in the Nation last 

year on public lands. About 25 percent of them occurred in the 

State of Idaho, my State. 

The Murphy complex on the BLM isn’t even on that chart. This 

is just Forest Service land. This isn’t BLM land. That’s 600,000 

acres. That’s about like that large fire on the forest down in the 

lower portion of Oregon a few years ago. That’s why we’re concerned. 

Now the pie chart is a good example of us not knowing how to 

do it and what to do. I would suggest neither you either. Why? Because your largest source of revenue is gone. Now we’re eating up 

the other revenue that should be doing the things we want done 

on the public lands and in the Forest Service. We’re eating it up 

with fire. We’re probably in a progressive fire scenario of the kind 

that we haven’t seen in decades. 

So when we see cuts in budgets we have to have some explanation. I’ve been listening very closely, Mark, as you’ve talked 

about the $77 million cut, preparedness. What it means. What it 

doesn’t mean. 

Last month I assembled Forest Service, BLM, State and locals in 

Idaho to look progressively, to look forward into this coming season. What did we learn from last season? What should we be preparing to do for this season? 

Because last season, we all know, and thanks to you, Chief and 

thanks to you, Mr. Secretary, we almost, but we didn’t lose Sun 

Valley. I literally mean that, that grand old lady of the ski area 

out in the heart of Idaho. But we had to use unprecedented resources to stop that fire. But we got it done. Thanks to your dedicaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
25

tion and the dedication of marvelous fire fighters and you know, 

leaders that you put in place to get that done. Mother Nature cooperated a little bit. If she hadn’t we’d probably have lost more 

than we did. 

Now, it’s also been referenced that we had the Secretary of Interior before us. We looked at the 10-year average. I understand 

what you’re doing. I know the frustration of Senators. 

Senator Tester talked about the 10-year average. All I can say 

is, John, wait just a little bit because the 10-year average is changing very, very quickly. We’re going to start averaging in these years 

of, you know, 10 million acre burns, 8 million acre burns, and all 

of that. That’s going to change right quickly. 

But in the meantime, you don’t have any money. You cut budgets. You ought to be coming here and putting the pressure on us 

to do something different and to find more money to deal with 

these kinds of issues. Because preparedness is one thing, inoperability that became the key word of all who were at the Idaho summit a month ago. 

How do we work collectively together? How do we use the interagency? How do we, Forest Service and BLM and State and local, 

the right hand knowing what the left hand is doing or at least 

being able to communicate? In terms of good deal of work that 

needs to be done because we’re not out of the fire scenario that 

we’re seeing. 

In fact with the bug kill that’s out there. Yes, we’re having what 

appears to be a better than average moisture winter in the intermountain West. But that doesn’t mean we won’t have an extraordinary fire season though if the patterns are changing. 

Senator SALAZAR. But, Senator? 

Senator CRAIG. Ok. Let me do that. Then I’ll come back for a second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But because I did not make 

an opening statement, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

Welcome Mr. Rey and congratulations Chief Kimball and thank you both for 

spending time with the committee today to discuss your new budget. 

Last month, I asked several forest supervisors, BLM officials, county commissioners, state fire wardens, and representatives of the timber and grazing industries 

in Idaho and Governor Butch Otter to join me in discussion about Idaho wildfires. 

The participants of this meeting were all asked to share what they had learned 

from the 2007 fire season, a season where Idaho burned nearly 2 million acres. I 

heard stories of success and capitulation. 

I also asked participants to share what they thought could be done and should 

be done prior to the impending fire season. I walked away from the meeting with 

the following concerns:

• The necessity for improved communications. We must look beyond communication between fire teams on the ground, rather, we need to ensure that everyone 

impacted by a fire has the most up-to-date information. 

• We need to improve the interoperability of our communication networks so our 

incident commanders can connect to local, state, federal officials and most importantly: the members of a community that are directly impacted by a fire. 

• A community that understands the situation is more responsive to an emergency that a community that is receiving mixed messages. 

• The need to expand our initial attack force. Rural Fire Assistance grants put 

tools, for example shovels and radios, in the hands of fire fighters that are extremely knowledgeable—people that have worked the land their entire lives. 

26

• I know the Forest Service has concerns about fire fighter safety and maintaining a uniform incident comment system, but I think that we can and need to 

capitalize on this opportunity.

I understand that you have to make choices with a tight budget, however, I’m troubled by the over $77 million reduction in funding for preparedness compared to 

last year which funds the equipment, training, and hiring of firefighters. I’m concerned about what this will mean to the readiness of our firefighting resources. It 

seems to me that this will lead to more fires escaping initial attack and turning into 

the massive fires that threaten lives, property, and critical habitat. 

It is time to start looking into economically viable ways to mechanically treat the 

land. I still believe we can not only enhance the quality of our forest resources, but 

also improve the quality of life in our rural forest communities. 

While I appreciate the efforts of the administration to address the funding needs 

of the Secure Rural Schools reauthorization and their attempt to improve their proposal, unfortunately it has not been well received in this Congress. In short, this 

dog don’t hunt. However, I would like to continue discussions with the administration to look at other alternatives. 

With few timber receipts and jobs coming from our federal lands, one of the only 

advantages of living next to public land is the recreational opportunity. I sure hope 

I’m wrong and the Forest Service doesn’t plan to further restrict the public from 

its land. 

With that, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. I’m trying to express the frustration that many 

of us are sharing as our public lands burn. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator, we do want you to be able to consider us 

a very good buy and a good investment. We’re working very hard 

to make the dollars that we are spending on hazardous fuel treatment, vegetative treatment, with the full knowledge of the changes 

that we’re going through. Precipitation, temperature, species movement, we want to be the best buy for the taxpayer dollar and we’re 

working very hard on that. 

Senator SALAZAR. Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rey, 

you’ve been up here I think eight times now to defend the Forest 

Service budget. I’d have to say for the last 8 years, every budget 

has been terribly disappointing. I join my colleagues in expressing 

that investing in fire suppression while cutting prevention is a foolhardy approach and will only lead to even higher wildfire costs and 

budget pressures. 

The legacy of underfunded budgets have left big problems in our 

State. In Skamania County, 140 county employees and teachers are 

being laid off because of cuts to the County Payment Program. 

Across the State, access to trailheads are as about as bad as it’s 

been because of 8 years of inadequate road and trail maintenance 

funding. In some places over half the trails are either inaccessible 

or impassible. We are also seeing larger and more expensive 

wildfires resulting in the declining forest health with hazardous 

fuels because of the fiscal cuts to the treatments and forest health 

funding. 

This budget is much like, I think, what Judge Mullally in the 

Federal District Court in Montana observed last month when he 

threatened to incarcerate Secretary Rey for contempt, stating ‘‘the 

Forest Service has evidenced a strategy of circumventing the laws 

rather than complying with them.’’ I bring that up because among 

other things, I mean, I could go on with the roadless area and 

what’s happening with your proposal on the Tongass and everything else. But we—the Forest Service in the State of Washington 

27

signed an agreement in MOU saying that we should focus on those 

areas where water quality for people and fish were most important. 

We realize that there’s always going to be budget constraints. 

But we said let’s focus on those areas where water quality for fish 

and people are a key part of the strategy. So after declining budget 

requests in 2003 and 2006 and 2007 that we believe were endangering our habitats and water supplies in Washington State. 

We worked up here on the Hill and came up with the Legacy 

Road and Trail Remediation Program that did just that, address 

some of the most serious needs in the State of Washington and in 

other places. But now as a result of this budget and I should say 

there is a backlog on these roads and areas, you are basically zeroing out this program. So you’re not in compliance with this memorandum of understanding that the Forest Service signed with 

Washington State. We’re not going to have the resources to deal 

with some of these most pressing water quality issues. 

I want to know how you think you’re going to get into compliance 

with this agreement that the Forest Service has with the State of 

Washington on these areas of road less and road problems and 

road maintenance and back log? 

Mr. REY. First of all I would dispute the proposition that we’re 

not in compliance with the agreement. The agreement was one 

where the Federal Government and the State agreed to progressive 

level of effort to deal with legacy roads, culverts, and fish passage 

issues and we’re in the process of doing that. 

Senator CANTWELL. Where is that in your budget? 

Mr. REY. It would be in the regular road account. Now the legacy 

road account which the Appropriations Committees of the House 

and the Senate created last year by borrowing from a trust fund, 

we are implementing that. That will be done in 2008. We will devote the $39 million that the appropriators transferred from a trust 

fund account to that purpose for the purposes of doing additional 

remediation work. 

Senator CANTWELL. In what amount? In what amount, Mr. Secretary, in what amount? The $300 million or? 

Mr. REY. No. The account was a 30-month, $9 million transfer 

from a trust fund to a separate account for this purpose. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you’re saying there’s going to be level 

funding on those expenditures? It’s just——

Mr. REY. For 2008 we’re going to do that and then we’re going 

to continue that work in our 2009 proposal taking funding out of 

the road construction account. So that work is being done. The 

question is, is it being done as fast as people would like? Probably 

not. 

Is it being done with such alacrity that the State has so far indicated its satisfaction with our progress? Yes, it is. So, you know, 

at this point we and the State made an agreement. The agreement 

involved the level of effort over a period of time, a fairly extended 

period of time. We believe we’re meeting that commitment. 

Senator CANTWELL. The backlog is $300 million. So I just want 

to make sure that you are saying that the——

Mr. REY. We’re not going to deal with the backlog in a year’s 

time. No, I’m not saying that. 

28

Senator CANTWELL. But you’re saying that you’re going to move forward with $39 million or roughly thereabouts for 2000 and——

Mr. REY. Eight. 

Senator CANTWELL. Nine. 

Mr. REY. Eight. 

Senator CANTWELL. 2008. 

Mr. REY. Right. Then we’re going to continue that effort, albeit 

perhaps not quite at that level in 2009. How much we do in 2009 

will be a negotiation between the Congress and the Administration. 

We are committed to meeting our agreement with the State and 

will continue to work to do so. 

Senator CANTWELL. I would—we have had exchanges, I think 

probably, in all eight budget hearings. I will just say this, I’ve been 

disappointed every time from your answers and the reality that results from it. I will look forward to seeing how this $39 million is 

spent on these various water quality within my State and in other 

areas. 

But I have to say, Secretary Rey, the notion that this Administration wants to leave office with a moniker of healthy forests, I 

can tell you this Administration’s policies have been very 

unhealthy for our forests. This budget is another reflection of that. 

So I will be holding you accountable. I’m not the court of Montana, 

but we will do whatever we can to hold you accountable to make 

sure that these funds are spent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. REY. We look forward to working with you. Just for the 

record, I’ve only disappointed you seven times. I wasn’t here in 

2001. So maybe I’ve got one last opportunity to resuscitate. 

Senator CANTWELL. I look forward to that opportunity. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN [presiding]. Mr. Secretary and Chief Kimbell, 

welcome and my apologies for having missed a part of this. Even 

by Senate standards this has been a crazy morning because of all 

the traffic accidents in the 14th Street Bridge and the like. 

Let me start by where I finished yesterday with Secretary Kempthorne. I said that to me the combination of the cuts in the County 

Payments Program and the cut in the PILT Program are together 

a one, two punch directed right at the rural West. Today when I 

look at the budget, I see that there’s a significant cut in the program for State and Private Forestry. So it is not just a one, two 

punch. It is a one, two, three punch that, in my view, is just going 

to have enormous ramifications for forestry in our part of the country and they aren’t going to be good. 

I think what I want to do is having looked at the numbers that 

I think are indisputable, sort of unpack a couple of areas and figure 

out how they’re going to work into this overall debate. Secretary, 

there is an actual line item in the fire operations account that’s 

being cut. This is in the budget, a $13 million reduction to the hazardous fuels line item in the fire operations account. 

Now, my understanding is today some of that money can be used 

for thinning. Is that correct? 

Mr. REY. A lot of it’s used for thinning. That’s correct. 

Senator WYDEN. Tell me then how we square a cut in a program, 

an actual line item program that cuts money for thinning with the 

Administration saying that they want more thinning to go on. I 

29

happen to share that view. I’m about to introduce a piece of legislation that’s going to allow us to thin out the thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands of acres of overstocked, second 

growth stands. Going to make some tough decisions pretty hard for 

folks on my side of the aisle, make changes in the appeals process. 

I think you ought to be able to have your say in court, but 

shouldn’t have a constitutional right to a 5-year delay. 

So, prepared to go forward with a major thinning effort, I hope 

we’ll get bipartisan support. Also protect old growth like we did 

with the biomass definition where we worked with all of you. But 

how do you do something like that? 

Go forward with a more aggressive thinning effort when you actually see line items in the budget like the one that I’ve just pointed to. You’ve said, extra points for candor, that a substantial 

amount of it goes for thinning. How do you do more in the way of 

thinning when you actually have line items in the budget that are 

cutting the role of thinning? 

Mr. REY. I think the issue there is that a lot of that account is 

used for thinning, but that’s not the only account that’s used for 

thinning. If you look at the fire budgets of both the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture you’ll see that we’re 

proposing about an 8 million increase in the stewardship contracting account. That account is almost exclusively used for 

thinning. There is also a $3 million increase in the hazardous fuels 

account at the Department of the Interior. 

So at least for the purposes of comparing apples to apples, the difference is not $13 million, it’s about $2 million. So admittedly 

the totality of the accounts that go to thinning is $2 million less 

than what we’ve requested for this year than what was enacted 

last year. However, what was enacted last year was the all-time 

high for the money that was appropriated for thinning. The year 

before that was an all-time high. If you only met our request this 

year, it would be the third highest level in the Nation’s history. 

So, you know, in context, yes, it’s a level budget, and give or take 

a bit, that program is level as well. But it’s not a dramatic decrease. 

Now that having been said, should we enact new legislation, as 

you want to do, and we support? That’s, I think, a basis for looking 

at these accounts anew and deciding on the basis of that new legislation whether we should look at some reallocations. I’d be open to 

that. 

Senator WYDEN. I think your candor on this point that there’s actually been a reduction in the thinning budget is very helpful. Because it also saves us from having to go through the usual sparring 

that we do in these kinds of sessions. Folks can probably avoid that 

treat since you and I have been through that on many occasions. 

But I think my point is that with your admission that the 

thinning budget is going down, your calculation a little bit, my calculation more. It sure doesn’t square with what the Administration 

is saying it wants which is more thinning. That’s what the Secretary has said needs to be done. 

I’m going to ask one other question. But leave this subject by 

way of saying that after you left on the thinning topic when we had 

the hearings, especially on thinning, you said it was getting better, 

30

that you were making progress. Every witness, industry witnesses, 

environmental witnesses, every witness said that that wasn’t the 

case. So we’ve clearly got to do more. 

My last question, then I want to go to Senator Craig, deals with 

the County Payments, you know, issue. Get some sense of how you 

think this program is going to be reenacted in something resembling a transition period that we have agreed to. I mean, we have 

the 74 United States Senators, been able to fund this program over 

a transition period of approximately 80 percent. 

There’s some tough decisions for Idaho and Oregon and everywhere else. You all come in with a tiny fraction of that amount. 

$200 million and it’s once again going to require the dance of the 

offsets in order to even enact a program like that. 

So, how do you see what the Administration is talking about 

even resembling what 74 United States Senators have voted for 

which, as you and I have talked about, is going to be a transition, 

is going to involve hard decisions. But what we voted for, and what 

the Administration is talking about seems to be miles and miles 

apart. How would you propose and your recommendations on county payments telling people, for example in John Day, Oregon, 

where they’re waiting to hear how this is going to work out and 

Douglas County in Oregon and Lane County in Oregon. How’s this 

actually going to get done under what you propose? 

Mr. REY. The simple answer is it will get done through a negotiation between the Congress and the Executive to agree on what the 

formula for the extension is and what the offsets are. The $200 million that we put in the budget is already offset. So that’s our offer 

for money that we can use today without seeking offsets for 2010 

and beyond. 

We’ve also committed that as far as the 2009 payment is concerned we’ll work with you to find mutually acceptable offsets. If 

the $200 million for 2010 and beyond is inadequate in the minds 

of members, we can continue to work to find additional offsets for 

additional amounts. But in every discussion that we’ve had so far 

from 2005 to present, where the Administration has supported an 

additional extension of this program, we’ve supported it with a 

phase-down of payments. 

Under what we’ve proposed to you and what’s already happened, 

we already would have 2 years extension with no phase-down. So 

the phase-down, if it’s going to occur would then, presumably, be 

sharper in the out 3 years. But I think that’s something we’re prepared to work with the Congress on. I would hope that people 

would accept the proposition that we were able to offset, below the 

top line, a significant amount of money, as an indication of the Administration’s continued interest and good faith in closing this 

issue out in a manner that’s satisfactorily to the county. 

Senator WYDEN. So you’ve said you’ve found the offsets for $200 

million. Are people supporting that in the Congress? Is the Chairman of the subcommittee, the author of the legislation is Senator 

Craig. I’ve never even heard about that. Have you got Republican 

sponsors for these offsets? Tell me a little bit about that. 

Mr. REY. The offsets are within the top line. So the probability 

is there are opponents to these offsets because anybody who’s saying you didn’t fund this——

31

Senator WYDEN. I’m just curious where they are so that we 

might be enlightened. 

Mr. REY. There——

Senator WYDEN. The previous offset, Mr. Secretary, could not 

find one Republican United States Senator to be for. Now you’ve 

said you’ve identified $200 million of offsets in the Administration. 

I’m the author of the bill with Senator Craig. 

I’ve never heard about these offsets either. I would just have a 

little bit of curiosity in trying to explain to folks in Douglas County 

and Lane County and communities all over Eastern Oregon how 

this is going to proceed. Because any way you cut it, there is a 

huge gap between what 74 United States Senators have voted for 

and what the Administration is talking about. 

I’m going to let my colleague from Idaho ask his questions. I’m 

going to have to leave. So I’m going to let you proceed. In fact how 

much time does the Senator from Idaho expect that he’ll need this 

morning? 

Senator CRAIG. Excuse me, Senator Wyden, I think no more than 

about 5 minutes. 

Senator WYDEN. Then I’ll stay for yours because I always enjoy 

listening to you. Please proceed. 

Mr. REY. We can work further on describing those. 

Senator CRAIG. Let me pick up where Senator Wyden left off. I 

mean obviously $200 million is a start for looking at receipts coupled with need. We’ve got to come up with about $250 million if 

we’re going to be at that proposed formula funding level that we’ve 

come up with that has a progressive decline in it or somewhere in 

that formula. 

So we’ll, you know, it is a start. I do appreciate that. I think we 

all appreciate it. The question is what can we do with that. 

So let me step right into the issue of receipts. I have a list of 28 

mill closures across the country that have taken place since December 1. We know in part why that’s happening. 

Housing is down. Canadians are still pouring into the market. 

This Administration will not enforce Canadian timber agreement. 

I’m very frustrated by that. So there appears to be no skids on 

there. In Idaho, more importantly, at least from my perspective, 

not one timber sale has been offered for the U.S. Forest Service, 

yet in ‘08. I’ve got one mill down and probably more to come. 

Now if we’re going to sustain infrastructure that in part plays 

into the Healthy Forests Act and the thinning, the cleaning, the 

necessary harvest that has to go on in combination with all of that. 

We may be coming out of this housing cycle with more mills being 

simply taken down and shipped off to some foreign country. Can 

you explain, possibly you, Chief, why we’re not seeing timber sales 

offered up in Idaho yet? Because that’s my figures as of today, none 

have been offered. 

Ms. KIMBELL. I don’t have specifics for the State of Idaho, but I 

can certainly get that and sit down and visit with you on that, Senator. I do know that there was just recently a piece of litigation 

that was accepted by the Supreme Court to hear the case that 

originated on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. There have 

also been a string of challenges to some different work. 

32

I do want to come back to the question of having mills and having a very active timber industry. I think it’s been very important 

to have a continuing, vibrant, timber industry with a combination 

of different materials being handled by that industry. It will be 

very important to being able to do the work that needs to be done 

on the national forest and on the 400 million acres of private 

forestland across the country. 

Mr. REY. If I could add one element. One of the factors may be 

that we’re holding back to readjust appraisals to a falling market. 

The market has dropped significantly——

Senator CRAIG. Sure. 

Mr. REY [continuing]. Over the last several months. 

Senator CRAIG. Oh, yes. 

Mr. REY. We may be pulling those sales back to readjust the appraisals, since we’ve put them out with market appraisals tied to 

the previous market conditions and nobody will be able to bid on 

them. 

Senator CRAIG. That may be the case. We don’t know what the 

situation is. 

Mr. REY. We’ll check on it. 

Senator CRAIG. But that could be part of it. I know that currently 

mills cannot even retrieve the value of the stumpage out of the log 

when they turn it into dimensional. 

Let me turn to something that is frustrating. It’s a perfect example of a collision course that’s going on out in Idaho. Senator 

Barrasso touched on it and that’s with the bighorns. 

We have letters from the Forest Service some years back that 

with the planning, re-establishing of bighorns in Idaho that if there 

was ever a conflict that would arise between private, domestic 

sheep and bighorn sheep that the Forest Service would resolve 

that. You are. You’re running domestic sheep off the range. That’s 

what’s happening out there. 

We’ve got one producer down, another one going down. That is 

not the intent or the spirit of the letter offered some years ago because there was concern in Idaho that in an attempt to re-establish 

bighorns in a certain range at least along the greater lower Snake 

River area that this could be a cooperative venture. It’s proven not 

to be, at least by some attitudes and by some judges. 

Now while we’re struggling to get there it is a classic of what has 

happened across the West historically that brings us to where we 

are today. Initial attack firefighters, you know I always used to say 

they were the guys with the chain saws cutting trees because they 

had the cats and the low boys out in the forest. They’re gone. So 

now you have to pay millions more to have people ready to go out 

to fight. You have liability issues and all of that. 

So that day has changed. The world has changed. Your budgets 

are in trouble because of all of that. The fact that the chain saw’s 

no longer there in a reasonable fashion that you have no green 

sales to speak of. You have no cash-flow. You borrow from your accounts. I think there’s about $300 million that hasn’t been replenished yet. 

That’s after I, and others put $700 million more in last year in 

supplementals than was asked for originally that’s been spent. 

You’re still 300 plus in arrears. I mean all of that’s reality and yet, 

33

somehow, we’re trying to say things are ok. They’re not ok, in my 

opinion. 

So let’s go back to the sheep. Am I correct in stating that it is 

the role of the Forest Service to provide technical assistance to the 

States to handle the management issue? That’s what I was told. 

Can you explain what exactly the Forest Service doing to provide 

that technical issue that will sustain a bighorn population and domestic sheep grazing on those public lands? 

Mr. REY. Our role is to manage the habitat and the States’ role 

is to manage the game populations. To the extent that we provide 

the State with technical assistance or technical advice, it’s on the 

quality of the habitat in a particular location and in whether it can 

sustain a wild sheep population. 

What we have occurring with the sheep issue right now is the 

consequences, the unintended consequences of success. A number of 

partners of the Forest Service and State fish and game agencies 

have successfully re-introduced bighorn populations and now we’re 

dealing with the migration of those populations into existing grazing allotments. The conflict is not a conflict over habitat, it’s a conflict over disease spread. 

Senator CRAIG. I understand. 

Mr. REY. So what we need to do is work with the States to see 

how we’re going to sort that out. Governor Otter has been taking 

a leading role in trying to bring the various parties together. What 

is making that less collaborative than might otherwise be the case 

is that in a number of instances litigants who have the objective 

of reducing public lands grazing have stepped into the equation to 

use the conflict between wild sheep and domestic sheep as a wedge 

to try to achieve a different objective than the re-establishment of 

wild sheep populations. That objective is the end of public land 

grazing. We don’t obviously share that objective. 

But now we’ve got to fight our way through court decisions where 

that conflict is presented in the context of the responsibility of the 

Forest Service to use the discretion it has, which is managing the 

habitat to eliminate the conflict before wild sheep are threatened. 

That in essence——

Senator CRAIG. Mark, I appreciate all of that. But when the Forest Service was given the opportunity to accept some alternatives 

of different ranges that were substantially apart from the wild bighorn and the grazer was willing to make those adjustments. Not 

only did the Forest Service not do it, it is my opinion, I’ve read the 

court record now. I’ve got the transcript. It was not rigorously defended. 

I think the Forest Service caved. That’s what I think. Now here’s 

going to be the result. A little strip of private land that is the base 

property for this one grazer, if he’s gone from that domestic, or that 

public graze, will be turned into condos and trophy homes along 

the Salmon River. You’re all going to be down there defending 

them from fire in the coming years like you’re having to defend everything else because the grazers are no longer there. 

That’s the reality of what happens when the Forest Service does 

not rigorously defend what it said it would do some years ago. Oh, 

yes. There are interest groups out there that want grazing off the 

public lands. You know, it reminds me of this—Yes? 

34

Senator SALAZAR. Let’s do this, my friends, at nine and half minutes. 

Senator CRAIG. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Senator SALAZAR. If you can wrap up your questions. 

Senator CRAIG. I will wrap it up. 

Senator SALAZAR. We’ll let the Secretary give his answer and I’m 

going to put a document in the record and we’re out the door. 

Senator CRAIG. Ok. Chief Kimbell, Secretary Rey, it reminds me 

of something that I got engaged in in the mid eighties. We had the 

Director of the Park Service before us. I said, you know, I’ve just 

been through Yellowstone Park. It’s dead and dying. Do you have 

a managed burn system there to clean out some of this? Oh, yes. 

Yes, yes, we do. We do controlled burns and all that. That’s clearly 

our policy. 

I said, have you done any? No. Have you done any in any recent 

years? The answer was no. The next year the whole park burned. 

They almost lost Old Faithful Inn. So it was on the books. The intent was there, but the practice was not followed. 

That’s kind of what’s happening out in Idaho at this moment. 

The intent was in the letter. The policy says public graze, but it 

appears a rigorous defense or even when given reasonable options 

to move livestock around to keep separation from the bighorns is 

not willingly taken. 

I’ve visited with the ranger, the supervisor and I have visited 

with the regional forester. It’s work in progress, but in the meantime we’re going to lose a rancher. We’re going to lose that base 

property. Then you’ll be defending it from your wildfires. 

Mr. REY. Our goal is to see if we can avoid losing that ranch. So 

I’m not prepared to concede that outcome. 

Senator SALAZAR. The clock is very loud. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Senator SALAZAR. The time, gentlemen, has expired. 

Mr. REY. Thank you. 

Senator SALAZAR. Secretary Rey you can see the concern. I 

parlayed County Payments, PILT, State forestry efforts. We’ll have 

a chance to have further discussions. 

I’m also going to ask you to furnish for the record the written response on page 3–6 of the Strategic Plan and Performance Management document. There’s something called reduce the risk to communities and natural resources from fire. It indicates that the total 

number of acres that have been treated in the Wildland Urban 

Interface area and the non-Wildland Urban Interface areas has 

gone down dramatically from fiscal 2007 of 3.02 million to 2.4 million for 2009. If you’d give me a written response, it’s page 3–6 of 

that document. 

Mr. REY. Sure. I don’t think those numbers are right, but we can 

respond in writing. 

Senator SALAZAR. From your chart. We’ll look forward to your response. The committee’s adjourned. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Several programs accomplish hazardous fuels reduction as a primary or secondary 

benefit in the FY 2009 President’s Budget. The target for hazardous fuel reduction 

from all funding sources was adjusted from 3.02 million acres in FY 2007 to 2.44 

million acres as a result of proposed reduced program funding levels and increased 

35

emphasis on wildland urban interface projects, which are typically more costly. Several factors contribute to the FY 2009 target:

• The hazardous fuels treatment program is proposed to be funded at $297 million in the FY 2009 President’s Budget. Given increased emphasis on more expensive wildland urban interface fuel treatments, the agency expects to accomplish approximately 1.6 million acres. 

• Other restoration program accomplishments come from National Forest System 

programs. The proposed FY 2009 budgets for those programs will result in estimated accomplishments of 590,000 acres. 

• The State Fire Assistance (SFA) prgram reflects the 6-year program average adjusted to reflect a reduction of 25 percent in proposed funding in 2009. Although 

acres treated by SFA are not targeted since individual States determine the disposition of funds to meet a variety of fire and fuels objectives, it is anticipated 

that approximately 77,500 acres of hazardous fuels reduction will be accomplished through this program. 

• Wildland Fire Use tends to be variable, based on opportunity, seasonal conditions, and competition for resources that vary widely from year to year, and is 

difficult to predict. The 2008 estimate is 175,000 acres, and that level is a reasonable expectation for 2009 as well, based on the past 6-year average outcomes 

for fire use.

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. In January of 2007, the USDA Inspector General testified before this 

committee about wildfire cost-containment: ‘‘To control the risk of costly, catastrophic wildfires, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy specifies that FS 

give WFU and fire suppression equal consideration. However, existing FS firefighting policies and the lack of qualified WFU personnel restrict FS managers from 

doing so.’’ Specifically, the Inspector General mentioned that ‘‘FS managers have access to far fewer teams for WFU (7) than teams for suppression (55). FS estimates 

it needs to have 300 fire use managers to be able to select WFU as a strategy for 

all eligible fires. At the time of our audit, the agency had only 83 fire use managers.’’ How many fire-use managers does the Forest Service have today, and when 

do you expect to have the 300 managers that you estimated were necessary? 

Answer. As of February, 2008, the USDA Forest Service has 149 qualified fire use 

managers and an additional 90 fire use manager trainees. The Forest Service should 

have 300 fire use managers within the next several years. 

Question 2. Regarding the Administration’s proposal to phase-out the county payments program, the Budget Justification states that offsets for the proposal are provided for within ‘‘the topline of the President’s Budget throughout the Department 

of Agriculture and elsewhere.’’ Can you provide a list of those offsets? Are any of 

the offsets provided for within the Forest Service’s budget (and, if so, where)? 

Answer. As you noted, offsets for the Administration’s proposal are provided within the topline of the President’s Budget throughout the Department of Agriculture 

and elsewhere. There is no list of specific offsets we can offer at this time. 

Question 3. Does the Forest Service plan to fund the Community Forest Restora- tion Act at $5 million for FY 2009? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 4. At what level does the Administration propose to fund each of the 

three Institutes under the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act? 

Answer. The Forest Service has proposed to fund the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act Institutes at a total of $2.6 million in FY 2009, the 

same as the 2008 funding level. There are no plans to change the distribution of 

the total among the three Institutes. 

Question 5. 16 U.S.C. § 539(e) requires the Secretary to submit a report annually 

to this Committee on the timber supply and demand in southeastern Alaska. However, it has been many years since we have received such a report. It is my understanding that a draft of the report was prepared a number of months ago, but it 

has not been finalized. When do you expect to finalize and submit that report to 

the Committee? 

Answer. The Forest Service is finalizing the report for the years 2001–2005 and 

will submit it to the Committee as soon as it is available. 

Question 6. 16 U.S.C. article 1602 requires the Forest Service to develop a Renewable Resource Program every five years that includes ‘‘recommendations 

which... account for the effect of global climate change on forest and rangeland 

conditions, including potential effects on the geographic ranges of species, and on 

forest and rangeland products.’’ When will the Forest Service prepare the above-referenced recommendations? 

Answer. In the current budgetary climate, the Forest Service will continue to rely 

on the Forest Service Strategic Plan (current edition—FY2007 through FY2012: prepared under the Government Performance and Results Act) for broad strategic program direction. 

The Forest Service has been conducting climate change research since 1974. The 

most recent work has been summarized in the FY2005 Interim Report on the Resources Planning Act Assessment. The next assessment report will be in FY2010. 

38

The Forest Service Research and Development Staff has recently completed a 10-

year strategic plan for climate change research (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/fsgc/

climate-change.shtml) which will bring more focus on the effects of climate changes 

on ecosystems and species distributions. 

Question 7. The budget Justification states that the ‘‘increasing popularity of NFS 

lands for motorized recreation use . . . is causing significant impacts to NFS lands 

and resources’’ and results in ‘‘increased risks to public and employee health and 

safety.’’ Nevertheless, the budget proposes cutting law enforcement by $17 million 

(12%) and the remaining funding will be focused on addressing drug trafficking organizations along the borders. Do you expect the risks to public and employee 

health and safety to grow as a result of the cuts in the law enforcement budget? 

Answer. No. The President’s budget funds law enforcement at $115 million, slightly less than FY 2007 but well above historical funding levels. This level of funding 

will support approximately 739 FTEs and will focus on maintaining law enforcement presence in high priority and critical locations. Any reduction to the workforce 

will be managed through attrition and supervisor to employee ratios will be increased to ensure the highest possible field presence. Further, the agency will emphasize a more mobile workforce and move officers to temporary duty assignments 

in locations with emerging issues. 

Question 8a. What level of funding is included in the budget request to implement 

the appeals/hearings requirement for the hydropower licensing provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005? 

Answer. Funding for continued implementation of the appeals/hearings requirement has not been determined for FY 2009 at this time. In FY 2008, the Forest 

Service set aside $5,000 within the Landownership Management program to cover 

the costs of an Administrative Law Judge for travel and other incurred costs related 

to the holding of regulatory hearings. 

Question 8b. How many such appeals have been initiated to date? 

Answer. FERC licensees have petitioned the Forest Service to initiate trial-type 

hearings in seven proceedings pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and filed 

alternative conditions for six projects. 

Question 8c. How many appeals have been resolved? 

Answer. All cases were resolved to each party’s satisfaction before participating 

in the hearings before the administrative law judge or before the Secretary of Agriculture completed his determination and rendered a final decision on the proposed 

alternative condition. 

Question 8d. Please provide a listing of all such appeals and a description of the 

outcome (settled, including whether conditions were modified; Forest Service condition upheld; or other condition adopted). 

Answer. Specific project information is as follows:

39

Question 9a. How many new mining claims have been located on National Forest 

System lands over the past 10 years? Please provide the number of claims located 

by year. 

Answer. We have referred this question to the Department of the Interior for a 

response, as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for compiling 

and maintaining information regarding mining claims on all public lands (including 

National Forest System lands) in their database—Land and Minerals Legacy Rehost 

2000 System (LR 2000). We are working with the BLM to provide you the requested 

information. 


FS8d021408.eps
40

Question 9b. How many claims have you witnessed an increase in the claims located for uranium production? 

Answer. See Answer to Question 9a. 

Question 10a. How many abandoned hardrock mine sites are there on National 

Forest System lands? 

Answer. Various estimates exist for the number of abandoned mines on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands but the exact number is unknown. All estimates are 

based at least in part on abandoned mine data now part of the Mineral Resources 

Data System (MRDS) which is managed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Analyses of 

the data in MRDS indicates there may be 27,000 to 39,000 abandoned mines of all 

types on NFS lands, of which 18,000 to 26,000 are abandoned hardrock mines. 

Question 10b. How many of these sites pose a threat to public health and safety? 

Answer. The data in MRDS indicates that there are 9,000 to 13,000 abandoned 

hard rock mines that are past producers and therefore more likely to require environmental cleanup or safety mitigation work. 

Question 10c. What is the estimated cost to reclaim all abandoned sites on Forest 

Service land? 

Answer. The estimated cost to reclaim all abandoned mine sites on Forest Service 

land is approximately $5.55 billion in 2007 dollars. This is a very rough estimate 

based on actual survey data from 1994, adjusted for inflation. The actual number 

of abandoned mines and the extent of cleanup required are unknown. 

Question 10d. How much funding is included in the Budget for FY2009 for 

hardrock AML reclamation? 

Answer. In the FY 2009 budget there is $12.894 million for the cleanup of environmental contamination and safety hazards at sites on National Forest System 

lands. It is estimated that 75 to 80 percent of these funds will go to abandoned mine 

cleanup and safety hazard mitigation. The remaining 20 to 25 percent of these funds 

are used for non-mining related clean-ups and environmental audits. 

Question 11. The New York Times dated February 14, 2008, contains an editorial 

entitled ‘‘The Power to Say No’’ which addresses the recent approval by the Forest 

Service of exploration activities for uranium located on the rim of the Grand Canyon. Do you think the Mining Law of 1872 should be amended to give the Forest 

Service additional authority to protect National Parks and other conservation units 

from mining activities? 

Answer. Amendments to the 1872 Mining Law are unnecessary as the Forest 

Service currently has sufficient authority to protect National Parks and other conservation system units from the impact of mining activities occurring on adjacent 

National Forest System lands. The Grand Canyon National Park is withdrawn from 

all forms of mineral activity. The proposed exploration activities are outside the National Park. 

Question 12. What is the estimated value of hardrock minerals produced on National Forest System land in each of the past 10 years? 

Answer. The Forest Service only has records for years 1999 through 2004. Producers are not required to provide this information and it is no longer estimated 

by the agency.

Question 13. What role does the Forest Service play in setting the level of financial assurances for hardrock mining operations on National Forest System lands? 

Answer. The Forest Service has the authority to require the financial assurance 

needed to cover the full cost of reclaiming land and resources disturbed by hardrock 

mining operations on National Forest System lands. In most cases, the Forest Service calculates the amount of financial assurance which is then reviewed and accepted by the operator as a condition of plan of operation approval. For some large operations, the operator may submit a financial assurance estimate which the Forest 

Service then reviews for adequacy before accepting it. Where hardrock operations 

are also regulated by other Federal or State agencies, the Forest Service typically 


FS12021408.eps
41

coordinates with those agencies to arrive at a mutually acceptable financial assurance amount. 

Question 14. Does the Forest Service typically rely on categorical exclusions for 

authorizing exploration activities for hardrock minerals on National Forest System 

lands? 

Answer. No. Categorical exclusions for mineral exploration activities are only appropriate where the scope of the proposed exploration activity fits within the terms 

and conditions of an established category. Additionally, even if a proposed exploration activity fits within an established category, the Forest Service would not approve it under a categorical exclusion if it violated the agency’s ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ policy. The categorical exclusions established by the Forest Service are 

contained in the Forest Service Handbook at Chapter 1909.15, Section 31.2 and the 

agency’s ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ policy is set forth at FSH Chapter 1909.15, 

Section 30.3. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 15a. Mr. Rey, in your February 14, 2008 testimony regarding the President’s FY 2009 proposed budget for the Forest Service, you discussed the increased 

funding needs for Wildland Fire Management based on the 10 year average for the 

number of wildfires controlled during initial attack and the number of human 

caused wildfires. Your Agency continually cuts significant programs that can assist 

in actually preventing wildfires, such as those that would fund ‘‘thinning’’ which is 

an important issue in the State of Oregon. 

In the FY 2009 proposed budget, the Administration is requesting a decrease in 

the hazardous fuels reduction funds; a program that would help address this very 

problem. In a chart on page 3-6 of the Forest Service’s FY 2009 budget justification 

document, you provide the actual FY 2007 total number of acres treated, 3,026,707, 

in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and non-WUI, as well as the number of acres 

treated for other vegetation management activities that achieved fire objectives as 

a secondary benefit. Your Agency’s FY 2009 target for the number of acres treated 

is 2,442,500. The chart on page 3-6 also indicates that the acres moved into a better 

condition class per million dollars gross investment is expected to increase from 

1,809 in FY 2007 to 2,835 in FY 2009. 

Question 15b. Can you explain why the Administration is proposing to treat 

584,207 fewer acres in FY 2009 (as indicated in the table) at a time when your own 

budget describes the increased funding needs for Wildland Fire Management? 

Question 15c. Why is this occurring? 

Question 15d. Isn’t your Agency moving in the wrong direction? 

Question 15e. What is the basis for the Forest Service’s estimate that the cost to 

move acres to a better condition class will decrease sufficiently to permit more than 

50% more acres to be moved to a better condition per million dollars of investment? 

Answers a-e. Within the budget amounts specified for programs that treat hazardous fuels as a primary or secondary benefit in the President’s Budget, the FY 

2009 fuels reduction target is 2.44 million acres. The Forest Service will focus on 

treating acres in the wildland urban interface (WUI). This strategy of treating acres 

in the WUI will help deter large, destructive, and costly wildfire, thereby protecting 

both communities and natural resources, reducing safety risks to firefighters and 

the public, and reducing wildfire suppression costs. In FY 2009, all Hazardous Fuels 

funds will be allocated using the Ecosystem Management Decision Support Model 

which ranks and prioritizes allocations based on factors such as fire risk, efficiency 

of treatments and effectiveness of treatments. Moreover, at least 40 percent of hazardous fuels funds allocated to regions will be used to improve the condition class 

on at least 250,000 acres by the end of FY 2009. 

The complexity of working in the WUI results in higher treatment costs, which 

leads to lower total treatment acres. But these treatments will ultimately be more 

effective in meeting our overall protection objectives. 

We anticipate a higher accomplishment in acres moved to a better condition class 

per million dollars gross investment, consistent with recent trends. The concept of 

‘‘condition class’’ is a simplified term to represent extremely complex ecological status factors. Ecological status is more accurately described as a diverse gradient with 

desired ecological condition on one end and extremely poorly functioning landscapes 

on the other. The classes are helpful in discussing movement along the gradient, 

but often small changes will alter the ‘‘class’’ determination without dramatically 

changing ecological function. 

Multiple treatment entries may accelerate the improvement of acres to a better 

condition class. As we progress with treatments, we are able to conduct follow-up 

treatments and reap the benefits of multiple efforts. This enables us to raise even 

42

more acres to better condition classes than we are able to do with acres just receiving initial treatments. 

Question 16. The Forest Service is preparing guidelines for the siting of wind energy facilities in national forests. What is the Forest Service’s overall policy with 

regard to the siting of wind energy facilities in national forests and how and when 

will individual forest management plans be modified to incorporate the potential for 

wind energy development? 

Answer. Forest Service policy is that wind energy is an appropriate use of National Forest System (NFS) lands and will be evaluated like all proposals to use or 

occupy NFS lands. The proposal will be evaluated in accordance with our regulation 

found at 36 CFR 251.54 and if required, the land management plan will be amended 

to include that use. 

Question 17a. I also have several specific questions concerning these proposed 

guidelines for wind projects and how they will be implemented. 

It is my understanding that Forest Service guidelines could be interpreted to require two years of pre-installation and three years of post-installation wildlife monitoring for construction of temporary meteorological data collection towers? Is this 

your intent? 

Answer. The proposed guidelines do not specify that all wildlife monitoring must 

include 2 years of pre-construction and 3 years of post-operations monitoring. The 

proposed guidelines state that ‘‘the authorized official shall determine the length of 

term for pre-construction and post-construction monitoring.’’ (Draft FSH 2609.13 

section 82), as determined by the appropriate level of environmental analyses. The 

intent will be clarified in the final. 

Question 17b. The Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 31.2(3) allows for a 

Categorical Exclusion where ‘‘approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of National Forest System lands that require less than five contiguous 

acres of land’’ and includes ‘‘approving the construction of a meteorological sampling 

site.’’ Why doesn’t this apply broadly to the meteorological towers installed by wind 

developers? 

Answer. The categorical exclusion option does apply broadly and is available for 

use by the authorizing officer, unless there is a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist. Environmental evaluations determine if use of a categorical exclusion is appropriate. 

Question 17c. Your proposed guidelines specify a minimum wildlife monitoring regime of two years pre-construction and three years post-operations monitoring for 

all wind projects. What is the basis for this ‘‘one size fits all’’ monitoring recommendation? Isn’t the assumption that all projects have wildlife issues or is this 

demonstrably not the case? 

Answer. The proposed guidelines do not specify that all wildlife monitoring must 

include 2 years of pre-construction and 3 years of post-operations monitoring. The 

proposed guidelines state that ‘‘the authorized official shall determine the length of 

term for pre-construction and post-construction monitoring’’ (Draft FSH 2609.13 section 82), as determined by the appropriate level of environmental analyses. The 

number of years over which monitoring may occur are only recommendations, and 

as such, do not preclude the option of using other monitoring methods or other timeframes as needed. The proposed guidelines do not presume that all proposed 

projects have wildlife issues. Pre-project scoping identifies whether any wildlife 

issues are likely to be associated with the proposed project site so that monitoring 

can be specifically targeted. 

Question 17d. The Forest Service requires developers to identify specific turbine 

locations when submitting a site plan. It is my understanding, however, at the early 

stage in development when this plan would be required, years before construction, 

it is impossible for developers to know specific turbine locations or even overall 

project size. Furthermore, the turbine model to be used will not be known for some 

time due to turbine availability and wind regime characteristics that will not become clear until later in the process. Has the Forest Service considered alternative 

siting requirements such as establishing a development ‘‘corridor’’ wherein turbines 

could be spaced out anywhere within a mapped, identified and studied corridor? Are 

there any obvious legal hurdles regarding this action? 

Answer. The Forest Service has not considered a specific corridor for wind energy 

development. In coordination with several Federal agencies, the Forest Service is 

currently evaluating national energy corridors in the 11 Western States and is beginning to focus on the remaining 39 States. All NEPA decisions require public 

scoping, including categorical exclusions, and depending on the action may be subject to notice, comment, and appeal. Though we don’t consider these public processes 

hurdles, they can increase the time needed to issue any permits. We do not foresee 

obvious legal hurdles beyond those requirements. 

43

Question 17e. The Forest Service has proposed being allowed to require that turbines be relocated even after a project is operational. Does the Forest Service reserve the right to move other kinds of projects, or portions of, such as communications towers, ski resorts, or transmission lines after the project is constructed and 

operational? 

Answer. Our directives are intended to address unusual circumstances such as 

when the structure becomes a health or safety hazard, or when an emergency situation arises resulting from earthquakes or landslides. Removal would normally be required when the permit has expired. This is consistent with actions permitting other 

structures on National Forest System lands. 

Question 17f. Given the financial uncertainty surrounding this relocation requirement—a project could end up being allowed to produce significantly less energy than 

planned if the Forest Service exercised this option without some sort of compensating mechanism—it is likely that this requirement would make it more difficult 

to finance wind projects on Forest Service lands. Has the Forest Service considered 

less draconian mitigation measures such as idling units for specific periods of time 

when wildlife impacts actually occur? 

Answer. The Forest Service will consider any number of alternative mitigation 

measures, including idling units to reduce impacts; relocation of turbines would only 

be initiated under emergency situation or if the structure becomes a health or safety 

hazard. If monitoring indicates that the wildlife impacts are unacceptable, idling 

during certain hours and season would be an option for the authorizing officer to 

consider. 

Question 17g. The Forest Service draft wind project guidelines appear to allow 

other Federal agencies, such as the Defense Department, to raise concerns about a 

proposed project and effectively kill it. However, there is no requirement that such 

agencies provide any evidence that would justify their concerns or to allow developers to respond to those concerns. Why didn’t the Forest Service include some sort 

of transparent appeals process whereby developers could challenge assertions or evidence from other agencies or during which developers could negotiate mitigation options that could alleviate the concerns? 

Answer. The applicant is encouraged to coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to submitting a proposal to the Forest Service for consideration. If a submitted proposal is denied, the applicant has appeal rights through our 

regulations at 36 CFR 251 Subpart C. 

Question 17h. How did the Forest Service arrive at the noise restriction of 10 decibels above background noise levels for wind projects? While this might be an appropriate level for some sites, why is this an appropriate level for every site? Is there 

science to support that level? How does it compare to existing state or local noise 

requirements for wind projects? 

Answer. The guidelines do not restrict noise levels to 10 decibels at every site; 

the text in Section 73.11c states ‘‘where possible and to the extent feasible’’. The 

Forest Service recognizes that different species will be sensitive to different noise 

levels above background noise. The draft policy states that the authorized officer 

would ensure, when possible, noise level restrictions to ‘‘avoid habitat abandonment 

or disruption of reproductive activities.’’ The 10 decibels ceiling is consistent with 

the Bureau of Land Management’s Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Chapter 5, for mitigating effects at sage-grouse leks. 

Question 17i. The Forest Service draft wind project guidelines recommend white 

strobe lights for wind facilities. Yet, the FAA and FWS recommend red strobe lights. 

Why did the Forest Service make a different recommendation and how will developers be able to comply with both USFS and FAA requirements? 

Answer. This is an error in the draft guidelines—both red and white lights are 

recommended. This will be corrected in the final document. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 18. Secretary Rey, during your testimony you responded to my questioning regarding the Forest Service’s plans to bring our national forest roads into 

compliance with an agreement with the state of Washington signed in 2000. Both 

the Governor and I were surprised by your comments. Could you respond in detail 

to the following letter that Governor Christine Gregoire wrote in response to your 

oral testimony? 

Answer. A response to Governor Gregoire’s letter follows:

44

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

Washington, DC, April 23, 2008. 

Hon. CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE, 

Governor, State of Washington, Office of the Governor, Post Office Box 40002, Olympia, WA. 

DEAR GOVERNOR GREGOIRE: I am writing in response to your February 15, 2008, 

letter about my testimony at the hearing of the United States Senate Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources on February 14, 2008. The hearing is just one 

of many times in recent weeks and months that issues and concerns about impacts 

on water quality and fisheries resulting from roads on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands in Washington have been discussed. I would like to provide you a brief 

history of these issues in the Pacific Northwest Region and describe our progress 

in addressing them. 

In 2000, the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). This agreement outlined common water quality goals and objectives for NFS lands and the 

ways in which the Forest Service and the State were going to collaboratively achieve 

them. A key provision of the MOA committed the Region to minimizing delivery of 

pollutants from its road network and providing passage of fish at all road-stream 

crossings by 2015. The intent of that provision was to ensure that roads on NFS 

lands in the State meet the same standards as those required for roads on non-Federal lands over the same time frame. The agreement included key milestones for 

analysis of the road network, development of road management plans, and implementation of needed stabilization and fish passage work. 

On average, from 2000-2005, the Region has invested approximately $4 million/

year of appropriated funds towards road maintenance and reconstruction, road decommissioning, and fish passage improvements in Washington. These funds have 

been leveraged with a substantial and increasing amount of partner funding, enabling us to perform additional work. Cumulatively, these investments resulted in 

the following accomplishments:

• 12,200 miles of road, representing 55 percent of the total network, were assessed for risks to aquatic resources. 

• More than 1,200 road-stream crossings were inventoried to determine whether 

they are barriers to fish. This represents virtually all crossings on streams that 

support anadromous fish and 75 percent of those on streams that support only 

resident fish. Only 200-300 low priority crossings for resident fish remain to be 

inventoried. 

• 885 miles of road were decommissioned. 

• 1,590 miles of road were reconstructed. 

• 28,250 miles of road maintenance treatments were implemented (some road segments may have been treated more than once.) 

• 60 stream crossings were replaced or improved, opening 138 miles of habitat 

(2002-2005 data only). This, combined with previous work, has enabled the Region to make substantial fish passage improvements in Washington. The Olympic and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests, for example, have nearly completed their high-priority passage work.

Most importantly, by enhancing communication via frequent meetings and status 

reports, the Region has dramatically improved its relationship with the State. Despite these accomplishments, based on the inventory and analysis work that has 

been completed since 2000, the 2015 milestone may not be attainable with current 

and projected funding. This was outlined in my June 29, 2007, response to Senators 

Cantwell and Murray and Representatives Dicks, Baird, Larsen, and Inslee, wherein I noted that over $300 million would be needed to address road decommissioning, 

deferred maintenance, and fish passage work in Washington. 

Nonetheless, the Region is well-positioned to deliver the highest returns possible 

on agency and partner investments in watershed and aquatic restoration, including 

those related to roads. For example, development and implementation of the Regional Aquatic Restoration Strategy (ARS) has enabled the Region to be more strategic than ever. It has explicitly identified priority areas at both Regional and Forest scales, and has directly linked its investments to these areas. The work is now 

guided by watershed action plans that outline all essential work, not just work related to roads, needed to restore whole watersheds in the priority areas. Numerous 

partners at Regional and local levels are investing in the program. 

The ARS and the road inventory and assessment work that have been completed 

enabled the Region to quickly and strategically allocate the FY08 Legacy Roads and 

45

Trails (Legacy Roads) funding in a way that will most effectively achieve the strategy’s objectives. Based on its previous work, I am confident the Region is allocating 

its Legacy Roads funding towards the highest risk road segments and stream crossings in the highest priority watersheds and river basins. Many of these are located 

in Washington and that is reflected in our FY 2008 forest allocations. For example, 

of the $8.37 million of Legacy Roads funding the Region received, $3.46 million was 

directed towards national forests in Washington. Since those Forests contain only 

25 percent of the Region’s roads, more than twice as much funding is being invested 

in Washington on a per mile basis as in the remainder of the Region. Relative allocations to Forests in Puget Sound are even greater. 

As you mentioned in your letter, storms have wreaked havoc on road systems in 

the Northwest over the last two winters. While the ARS will lead to long-term reductions in damage when such storms occur, it is too late to avoid the damage from 

past storms. The Forest Service is working on emergency repairs to get the roads 

open. Funding for the work is provided through the Emergency Relief for Federally 

Owned Roads (ERFO) program administered by the Federal Highway Administration. An additional $22.1 million in funding from ERFO is going to address road 

damage in Washington caused by storms in November 2006 and December 2007. 

I believe the Forest Service has a proven track record in accomplishing high-quality road and aquatic restoration work and is well-positioned to continue in the future. Looking at current FY2008 allocations I do not believe the Region can make 

additional shifts of funds to Washington State. 

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this in further detail. 

Sincerely, 

MARK REY, 

Under Secretary.

Question 19a. Submit the following budget information for the record related to 

the Construction, Infrastructure and Maintanence (CI&M) budget line items. 

Fiscal year 1999-2009 enacted and Administration request levels for the roads and 

trail accounts under the CI&M budget line item. 

Answer. The Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads and Trail programs 

for FYs 1999 through 2009 are as follows:

Question 19b. Please submit the following budget information for the record related to the Construction, Infrastructure and Maintenance (CI&M) budget line 

items. 


FS19a021408.eps
46

Fiscal year 1999-2009 final amount allocated to Region 6 as well as each individual national forest in Region 6 for the road and trail accounts within CI&M. 

Answer. Allocations for FY 2009 have not been determined at this time. See tables 

below for allocations for Roads and Trails budget line items for national forests in 

the Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6).


FS19b021408.eps
47

Question 19c. Please submit the following budget information for the record related to the Construction, Infrastructure and Maintanence (CI&M) budget line 

items. 

For Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007 provide a detailed list, by National Forest in 

Washington state, of miles of road maintained or improved, number of culverts removed or replaced, and miles of road actively decommissioned. 

Answer. See below.


FS19bb021408.eps
48

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 20. The proposed budget cuts State & Volunteer Fire Assistance by 23%. 

These funds are used for important state and local programs, often in conjunction 

with the Forest Service. When combined with the cuts to Forest Health Management on federal lands (13% cut) and cooperative lands (63% cut) I think that our 

collaboration on the ground will be hurt. Would you agree with me that these are 

good programs that are the victims of a difficult fiscal crunch? 

Answer. I agree these are good programs. The FY 2009 budget request includes 

a total of $60 million for State Fire Assistance, $13 million for Volunteer Fire Assistance, and $79 million for Forest Health Management—funding levels similar to 

prior year requests. State Fire Assistance funds will be used to assist 3,900 communities, targeting the highest priority needs. This funding will enable State and local 

fire protection organizations to be effective first responders for initial attack on 

wildland fires. Volunteer Fire Assistance funding will support technical and financial assistance to local communities, through States, where the population is less 

than 10,000. Forest Health Management funds will be used to treat 452,000 acres. 

Where possible, the Forest Service will coordinate these treatments with those of 

our other vegetation management programs, to maximize accomplishments on the 

ground. 

Question 21. I would like to make sure that you are both aware of the level of 

collaboration taking place in Colorado. The Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership and the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative are both working with private, local, 

state, and Federal interests to address deteriorating forest health conditions. Recently the Governor of Colorado announced a statewide Forest Health Advisory 

Council that includes the Forest Service and BLM. Will you commit to staying engaged with these collaborative efforts in Colorado? 


FS19c021408.eps FS19cc021408.eps
49

Answer. The Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service is working in partnership with local governments, State and Federal agencies, and other partners to coordinate bark beetle suppression and prevention work and hazardous fuel reduction 

work across the landscape in Colorado and Wyoming. The Forest Service strongly 

supports partnerships as the means to assess, and develop solutions to, resource 

management issues such as the complex bark beetle and hazardous fuels issue along 

the Front Range. 

Question 22. Chief Kimbell, as you work towards determining the fiscal year 2009 

regional allocations I want to remind you of the needs and capabilities of Colorado 

and Region Two. In October Senators Barraso, Enzi, Allard, Johnson, and Thune 

joined me in expressing our concern about any reduction in Region Two’s allocation 

and I think I speak for all of us when I say that we look forward to continuing this 

dialogue. Can you, briefly, walk us through the determinations you will use for FY 

2009 regional allocations. 

Answer. The FY 2009 regional allocations to the field are not fully determined in 

advance of appropriations. Program resources will continue to be directed towards 

efforts that maximize program delivery, including strengthening partnerships which 

are vital to accomplishing stewardship work on the ground. Although each budget 

line item has an allocation method and criteria that is specific to that program, the 

agency is taking a more integrated approach to allocating funds to gain multiple 

benefits with one land treatment. Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, Forest Products, Vegetation and Watershed Management, Hazardous Fuels, Forest 

Health, and other permanent and trust funds work together in an integrated way; 

all play a key role in restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, improving wildlife habitats, 

watershed condition, and overall forest health. 

Question 23. According to analysis provided to my office by the Forest Service, 

Colorado currently has 102 projects covering 186,000 acres that are ready to go, 

pending funding. There are another 58 projects covering and additional 97,000 acres 

in the planning pipeline. In 2007 the Forest Service accomplished approximately 

75,000 acres of treatment in Colorado and 169,000 acres in Region Two. I note that 

the Accelerated Watershed/Vegetation Restoration Plan that was developed to focus 

on regional resources in high-priority issues set a goal of 245,000 acres/year. So we 

are short of that goal. Chief, without making the mistake of gauging success purely 

on the number of acres treated; do you understand why I am concerned that the 

Forest Service is falling further behind in reducing hazardous conditions in our forests? 

Answer. The Forest Service is committed to improving the health and sustainability of our forests. In every region, the agency is spending available dollars on 

our highest priorities in the most strategic locations to maximize our effectiveness 

and meet multiple management objectives wherever possible. We are working on 

initiatives to expand capabilities and find markets for the woody material that result as a byproduct of treatments. These types of activities can help pay for forest 

restoration work. 

Question 24. One of the provisions of the Colorado delegation’s forest health bill 

addresses an issue that the Forest Service has identified as preventing it from utilizing landscape level stewardship contracts. The issue, as we understand it, is that 

the Forest Service region must keep funding on hand to address contract cancellation liability. Often times this amount is so large that doing so would prevent important work from taking place in the region and the result is that stewardship contracts are not being utilized for larger projects. Can you tell the committee more 

about that issue? 

Answer. As part of the multi-year contracting authority, FAR 17.106-1 requires 

that contracting officers determine reasonable cancellation costs as well as obligation of the full ‘‘contingency liability’’ amount at the time of award of the contract. 

Obligation of the full ‘‘contingency liability’’ amount may constrain a unit’s available 

funding, or serve as a disincentive to a manager opting to perform stewardship contract work on a multi-year contract basis. Multi-year contracts are attractive to contractors as they can provide a stable work base over time (up to 10 years) and may 

be more attractive to lending institutions who may be considering lending money 

to contractors, with the contract as collateral, to invest the needed capital in infrastructure necessary to perform stewardship contracts. The Forest Service does use 

other types of procurement contracts such as multiple-year contracts (i.e., singleyear contracts with an option to extend without additional solicitation) or Indefinite 

Delivery Indefinite Quantities that do not require cancellation ceilings. These are 

effective tools to achieve land management goals. 

50

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 25. During the hearing and the discussion on the Valles Caldera funding 

Undersecretary Rey indicated that Region Three would provide funding for the 

Caldera in FY 2009. Please provide us with detail on how much funding the Caldera 

could expect in FY 2009 and from which budget line items that funding would come? 

Answer. Final budget allocations for individual units of the national forests and 

grasslands have not been determined at this time. Final allocations to the unit level 

will be determined after final enactment of the FY 2009 budget. The Washington 

Office allocates funds only to the regional level. Each regional forester then determines allocations to the national forests and grasslands within their respective region. Allocations to the regions, and subsequently to the forests and grasslands, are 

generally based on competitive criteria that compare region/forest capabilities and 

needs, unit costs, and performance. The type of funds provided would be determined 

based on the Valles Caldera National Preserve’s (Preserve) program of work. The 

agency will work with the Valles Caldera Trust (Trust) to determine the appropriate 

mix of funds. 

Question 26. Do you expect to increase Region Three’s overall funding compared 

to previous years to provide the Caldera funding? 

Answer. The Region’s final allocation will be based on the final enacted budget 

and will be consistent with the President Budget priorities and any additional congressional direction. 

Question 27. Would the Caldera be allowed to expend that funding in any manner 

the Board of Directors choose, within the authority provided by the Caldera legal 

mandates or would they be constrained by the budget line items from which that 

funding came? 

Answer. The mix of funds provided will be determined based on the Preserve’s 

program of work. The agency will work with the Trust to determine the appropriate 

mix of funds. If unforeseen or changed conditions require a change in the mix of 

funds, we will work with the Trust to reprogram or transfer funds between budget 

line items within any limitations imposed by Congress for the reprogramming or 

transfer of funds, and to the extent that any reprogramming or adjustments don’t 

create unacceptable impacts to other existing programs. 

Question 28. Could you explain why the Forest Service believes an ear-mark that 

calls for a direct pass-through-payment to the Caldera can be considered in anyway 

part of the Forest Services discretionary budget? 

Answer. Beginning in FY 2001, Congress appropriated funds for the Valles 

Caldera within the National Forest System appropriation as a separate budget line 

item, not as an earmark. The National Forest System appropriation is part of the 

agency’s discretionary funds. As required in the Valles Caldera Preservation Act 

(P.L. 106-248) Section 106 (e)(3)(B), the agency has requested funds for the administration, operation, and maintenance of the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a 

separate budget line item and has received funds accordingly through the enacted 

budgets. Beginning in FY 2009, the agency has proposed eliminating the budget line 

item, but will provide funds to the Preserve through other Forest Service budget 

line items. 

In addition to the appropriated funds, monies received by the Trust either from 

donations or from the management of the Preserve are deposited in the interestbearing permanent appropriation account called the ‘‘Valles Caldera Fund’’ and are 

available without further appropriation. 

Question 29. During the hearing Undersecretary Rey indicated that it costs the 

Santa Fe National Forest approximately $14 per acre to manage the non-wilderness 

acres on that forest. 

Answer. No answer required. 

Question 30. How much does it cost per acre to manage each of the National Forests and Grasslands in the system? (Please provide both the total average cost per 

unit, as well as the average cost for the non-wilderness acres of each unit.) 

Answer. The comparison of dollars per acre between the Valles Caldera National 

Preserve (Preserve) and the Santa Fe National Forest, provided during the hearing, 

was a comparison of each unit’s allocation, not necessarily what the cost is to manage each unit. The $14 per acre for the Santa Fe National Forest represents what 

has been allocated to the Forest within available funds, while the $41 dollars per 

acre represents what has been appropriated to the Valles Caldera National Preserve. The cost to manage each national forest and grassland without regard to limited Federal budgets would likely be very different. Because of the Forest’s geographic proximity to the Preserve, there are similarities in the terrain, vegetation, 

wildlife, visitor use, and climatic conditions, which make comparisons meaningful. 

Comparisons across all national forests and grasslands would not provide similar, 

51

meaningful information because of the wide array of variables that influence each 

unit’s allocations. 

Question 31. In the FY 2008 Budget allocation the agency was provided 

$5,345,297,000 to manage 192,794,673 acres which works out to an average of 

$27.73 per acre. Are we to assume that if the Santa Fe can manage on only $14 

per acre that the $13.73 per acre difference between the cost the Santa Fe manages 

for and the average based on the agencies entire budget are consumed by overhead 

and special assessments? If not why is the Santa Fe getting such a low amount compared to the national average? 

Answer. The FY 2008 total non-emergency enacted budget is $5,255,643,000. The 

$14 per acre represents the overall allocation to the forest including the forest’s cost 

pool budget authority. Allocations to the regions, and subsequently to the forests 

and grasslands, are not determined on a per acre basis nor compared to a national 

average. Instead, funding allocations are generally based on competitive criteria 

that compare regional capabilities and needs, unit costs, and performance. 

Question 32. Please provide a detailed accounting of the cost of the Washington 

Office, the Regional Offices, non-forest related fire programs and training, travel, 

and employee benefits for each forest, region, and unit of the Forest Service? 

Answer. See below.

52


FS32a021408.eps
53


FS32b021408.eps
54


FS32c021408.eps
55


FS32d021408.eps
56


FS32e021408.eps
57


FS32f021408.eps
58


FS32g021408.eps
59


FS32h021408.eps
60


FS32i021408.eps
61


FS32j021408.eps
62

Question 33. Please provide the expected budget allocations for FY 2008 and FY 

2009 for all Washington Office and National Office accounts. 

Answer. See below.

Question 34. Please provide the expected budget allocation for FY 2008 and FY 

2009 for all Regional Office accounts. 

Answer. See below. At this time, will not be able to provide expected budget allocations for FY 2009; a preliminary estimate of allocations based on the FY 2009 

President’s Budget can be found starting on page 15-1 of the FY 2009 budget justification.


FS33021408.eps
63


FS34a021408.eps
64


FS34b021408.eps
65


FS34c021408.eps
66


FS34d021408.eps
67

Question 35. In the budget proposal there is mention of a Chief’s initiative called 

Children in the Woods. 

Answer. That is correct. ‘‘Kids in the Woods’’ is an umbrella ‘‘brand’’ for the many 

activities the Forest Service conducts to help children understand and appreciate 

the natural world. These activities are on-going and continue the long history of the 

agency’s commitment to providing meaningful outdoor activities for children. 

Question 36. How much of the FY 2009 funding is expected to be expended on 

this initiative? 

Answer. The FY 2009 funding level for More Kids in the Woods challenge cost 

share has not been determined at this time. In FY 2007, and FY 2008, the Forest 

Service provided $500,000 and $600,000 respectively for an agency-wide ‘‘More Kids 

in the Woods’’ challenge cost share opportunity to emphasize its commitment to reconnect children to nature. Partners have increased total funding by at least $1 million in matching funds each year. 

Question 37. Please provide a detailed accounting of what budget line items will 

be utilized to fund this program or initiative, including what line item and program 

and how much each program will be asked to provide? 

Answer. The FY 2009 funding level for Kids in the Woods has not been determined at this time. A total of $600,000 will be used to fund the More Kids in the 

Woods CCS projects in FY 2008 as follows:

Question 38. Please provide a detailed list of projects that the funds are expected 

to be spent on. 

Answer. The FY 2009 funding level for More Kids in the Woods Challenge Cost 

Share has not been determined at this time. Project proposals for FY 2008 funding 

closed on February 15, 2008 and an announcement of the recipients occurred in late 

April. A total of $491,056 was distributed on May 5, 2008, for the following projects 

for FY 2008:


FS37021408.eps
68

Question 39. Please provide the law, regulation, or executive order that provides 

the legal underpinning for the initiative. 

Answer. Many authorities provide the underpinning for the initiative: the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 as amended (16 U.S.C.528) directs the 

agency to provide for outdoor recreation; the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 

1978, as amended (16 U.S.C. 2101-2114, P.L. 95-313) authorizes the agency to work 

with State and other officials in implementing Federal programs affecting non-Federal forest lands; the National Environmental Education Act (of 1990) authorizes 


FS38021408.eps
69

the agency to promote environmental education; and the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1992 authorizes the agency to enter into challenge cost 

share agreements with cooperators (P.L. 102-154, Challenge Cost Share). Many of 

the activities conducted under Kids in the Woods support the President’s Executive 

Order 13266 and Healthier US initiative aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles for 

children and adults. 

Question 40. Please provide a list by line item and program of projects that will 

be forgone as compared to FY 2008 as a result of this initiative. 

Answer. FY 2009 funding level for More Kids in the Woods Challenge Cost Share 

(CCS) has not been determined at this time. It is important to note that this program is not taking away from mission related work; rather it is enhancing our ability to do mission related work by attracting a wide variety of partners whose contributions provide at least a 1:1 funding match. In FY 2007, the agency leveraged 

$500,000 of Federal funds with $1 million of partnership funds and in-kind services 

resulting in a total of $1.5 million for 24 projects. 

Question 41. Since 2002, almost $2 billion has been transferred from FS accounts 

to pay for fire fighting costs. The Knutson-Vandenburg (KV) account has been hit 

the hardest by these transfers and is currently short $159 million that has not been 

repaid. 

Answer. No response required. 

Question 42. Have you made a specific request of the appropriators to fund the 

repayment of the fire borrowing that has not been repaid? 

Answer. No. 

Question 43. With regard to other programs, why has repayment of KV not been 

a priority? 

Answer. Repayment of K-V funds is a priority when we have the capability to do 

so. K-V funds were repaid in full in FY 2005. In FY 2006, the Forest Service transferred a total of $200 million, of which $159 million came from the K-V account. 

That total has not been repaid; however, the Forest Service is required through appropriations language to transfer 50 percent of any ending balance in the fire suppression account to K-V for unpaid fire transfers. In FY 2006, there were not sufficient funds at the end of the year to do this. In FY 2007, there was a balance of 

$53 million in the Fire Suppression account and the Forest Service intends to transfer $26 million back to K-V to repay part of the outstanding balance. 

Question 44. Can you explain why in FY 2004, repayment to KV almost doubled 

from 2003, and was then decreased by almost half again in FY 2005? 

Answer. The amount of repayment, and which accounts have been repaid, have 

historically been determined by Congress. For example, the Interior Appropriations 

act for FY 2004 included the following Bill language:

For an additional amount, $301,000,000, to repay prior year advances 

from other appropriations from which funds were transferred for wildfire 

suppression and emergency rehabilitation activities... Provided further, 

That this additional amount and $253,000,000 of the funds appropriated to 

the Forest Service for the repayment of advances for fire suppression in 

Public Law 108-83, shall be transferred to the following Forest Service accounts: $96,000,000 to the Land Acquisition account, $95,000,000 to the 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance account, $9,000,000 to the Working 

Capital Fund, $52,000,000 to the National Forest System account, 

$31,000,000 to the State and Private Forestry account, $10,000,000 to the 

Forest and Rangeland Research account, $35,000,000 to the Salvage Sale 

fund, $28,000,000 to the Timber Purchaser Election account, $154,000,000 

to the Knutson Vandenburg fund, $20,000,000 to the Brush Disposal account, $14,000,000 to the Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration 

fund, and $10,000,000 to the Forest Land Enhancement Program account.

Question 45. How much do you anticipate will be repaid to KV from FY 2008? 

Answer. Approximately $26 million will be repaid to K-V in FY 2008 from FY 

2007 Fire Suppression funds. 

Question 46. Can you anticipate when the funds borrowed from KV will be fully 

repaid? 

Answer. We will continue to use the authority to transfer unobligated suppression 

balances to the K-V fund. At this time, we cannot estimate when it might be fully 

repaid. 

Question 47. Can you determine the impact these funds transfers have had on 

timber sales? 

Answer. In the recent past, excess K-V funds were made available to implement 

a variety of projects that also offered timber volume as a secondary output. CurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
70

rently, all existing K-V funds will be needed to perform essential reforestation within timber sale areas. 

Question 48. If the lumber market improves, thus improving the agency’s ability 

to sell more timber sales (as stated in the FY09 budget justification), what effect 

will the lack of $159 million in KV have on the Forest Service’s ability to prepare 

and implement timber sales? Answer. The lack of $159 million in K-V does not affect the agency’s ability to 

prepare and implement timber sales. 

Question 49. Why is the Forest Land Enhancement Program not to be repaid? 

Where will funding for this program come from? 

Answer. Authority for the Forest Land Enhancement Program expired in FY 

2007. Therefore, transfers made from the Forest Land Enhancement Program will 

not be repaid. 

Question 50. If not repaid, what Forest Land Enhancement Program projects will 

be foregone or eliminated? 

Answer. The authority for the Forest Land Enhancement Program expired at the 

end of FY 2007. 

Question 51. Can you identify from which regions’ KV funds you have borrowed 

from and how much you have borrowed from each region? How do you determine 

which regions’ funds to transfer from? 

Answer. Transfers from the K-V fund have not been linked back to specific regions or projects, since there have been enough K-V receipts on hand to do the annual program of work. If the balance in K-V becomes too low to fund the annual 

program of work, the shortfall will be equally distributed to all Regions that plan 

K-V work. 

Question 52. What projects will be delayed or cancelled as a result of the borrowing of the KV funds? 

Answer. In FY 2010, funds collected for essential reforestation will remain in the 

K-V account. Funds for other projects identified in sale area improvement (SAI) 

plans will not be available and accomplishment of this work would depend on the 

availability of, and priority for, other appropriated funds. In general, this includes 

work such as wildlife and fisheries habitat restoration, watershed improvement, 

timber stand improvement, fuel hazard reduction, and invasive species treatments 

for which money was collected and deposited in the K-V trust fund. 

Question 53. With regard to timber sales, do you consider a region’s productivity/

ability to implement timber sales when you determine which regions to transfer 

funds from? 

Answer. When the need to transfer funds arises, the Forest Service identifies unobligated balances from which transfers can be made. Regional timber sale productivity is not a consideration in this process. 

Question 54. When funds are repaid, are they allocated to the regions proportionately with regard to how much was borrowed the previous year(s)? 

Answer. Yes. As often as is possible, the Forest Service repays transferred funds 

directly back to the unit and program from which they were transferred. Exceptions 

include those times when congressional language specifically determines how repayments will be made. 

Question 55. With the increase in funding for fire suppression do you foresee any 

additional funds being transferred this fire season? 

Answer. At this time, we do not foresee transferring any additional funds this fire 

season. 

Question 56. While fire fighting costs were discussed during the hearing, where 

the major cost increases are occurring was not addressed. 

Answer. No response required. 

Question 57. Can you identify if there is a trend in the initial attack escapement 

rate in the WUI—has it been increasing or decreasing? Non-WUI? 

Answer. The agency does not currently monitor the number of fires escaping initial attack by WUI verses non-WUI. Overall, the agency has experienced a decrease 

in the number of fires contained during initial attack. We would expect this trend 

to be representative of fires both in and out of the WUI. Fires in recent years have 

become larger and more difficult to control due to a variety of factors, including climate change, historic fire suppression efforts resulting in increased density of hazard fuels, and expansion of residences in the WUI. The agency is modifying our fire 

report system with a WUI identifier so that it can monitor this activity in the future. 

Question 58. On average, since 2001, how many fires have escaped initial attack 

and what were the causes of the fires? 

Answer. The agency has contained 98.1 percent of wildfires during initial attack 

since FY 2001. The remaining 1.9 percent, or approximately 200 fires per year, esVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
71

caped initial attack and were 300 acres or larger. O the fires 300 acres and larger, 

57 percent were lightning caused and 43 percent were human caused. ‘‘Camping’’ 

accounted for approximately 25 percent of the human caused fires; the remainders 

are distributed through a multitude of causes. 

Question 59. Regarding roadless vs. non-roadless areas and WUI vs. non-WUI, can 

you identify how many fires are human-caused and how many fires are non-humancaused in each of these area? 

Answer. The agency does not track fires by roadless and non-roadless or by WUI 

and non-WUI. By June 2008, we will have the ability to begin tracking WUI and 

non-WUI incidents through our Fire Report system. Since 2001, approximately 44 

percent of all fires have been human caused. A higher percentage of the fires occurring in the WUI are likely to be human caused than those occurring in the nonWUI; however, we do not have national scale data to support this statement. 

A recent strategic analysis of fires in roadless, wilderness, and other lands for the 

Western United States indicated that approximately 28 percent of all unplanned 

fires occur within inventoried roadless areas or wilderness areas. See the table 

below for percentage of fires by land class.

Question 60. How much of the fire costs are associated with escaped humancaused fires in WUI and in non-WUI areas? 

Answer. The agency does not track fires by WUI and non-WUI; we will have this 

ability by June 2008. Since 2001, approximately 38 percent of the agency’s suppression expenditures for escaped fires have been associated with human caused fires. 

Please note that the percentage can vary significantly between fiscal years. For example, since 2001, it has ranged from approximately 56 percent to approximately 

25 percent. 

Question 61. Where have the largest escaped fires occurred? 

Answer. A recent strategic analysis of large fires for the period FY 2001 through 

FY 2007 indicated that Forest Service Regions 1, 3, 5, and 6 were the most impacted. See the table below for percentages of large fires by region.


FS59021408.eps
72

Question 62. Can you differentiate costs for successful initial attacks and costs for 

escaped fires? If so, please provide us the costs for successful initial attack and the 

cost for escaped fire each year since 2001. In what regions has initial attack been 

the least successful and what proportion of fire fighting costs do they represent? 

Answer. The agency has an ongoing analysis of unplanned fires and their associated costs. The analysis, when complete, will display the frequency of large fires, 

initial attack success, and suppression costs geographically. Our intent is to display 

this information by Forest Service regions unless data constrains us to a different 

geographic scale. While we could provide some preliminary information, the results 

of the analysis will provide more in-depth and reliable information. In the interim, 

please reference the charts and tables in questions 67 and 71. 

Question 63. If most of the fire suppression expenses are the result of WUI fires, 

and most of that land is non-federal can you: 

Answer. No response required. 

Question 64. Provide a list by year (2001—2007) of the number of fires that progressed from federal lands into the WUI and on to non-federal lands? 

Answer. The agency does not track fires by WUI and non-WUI; we will have this 

ability by June 2008. The table below indicates fires that started on Forest Service 

lands and also burned private lands and fires that started off Forest Service lands 

and burned on to Forest Service lands. Please note there is no distinction between 

WUI and non-WUI.


FS61021408.eps
73

Question 65. Describe the net cost incurred by the non-federal land owners for the 

fire suppression cost of fires that leave federal lands and that impact non-federal 

lands? 

Answer. The agency does not maintain fiscal data specific to your question, an indepth analysis of specific fires would be required to determine specific cost information for non-federal landowners. Approximately 37 percent of the agency’s suppression costs are associated with fires with points-of-origin under Forest Service jurisdiction that burn both Forest Service lands and those owned by others 

Question 66. Describe the net cost incurred by the federal government for fires 

suppression costs that moved from non-federal lands onto federal lands? 

Answer. The agency does not maintain fiscal data specific to your question, or cost 

information for non-federal landowners. 

Question 67. In FY08, Regions 2, 3 and 10 received considerably smaller allocations in several programs than did other regions. 

Answer. No response required. 

Question 68. Why is Region 3 receiving the lowest and some of the lowest allocations for forest health activities? 

Answer. Allocation of forest health funds appropriated in Forest Health Management budget line items considers a variety of program considerations. Some considered factors result in relatively stable component-specific funding such as forest 

health survey and technical assistance work, and other components are more competitive between all Forest Service regions, such as forest health monitoring 

projects. Others are competitive only between western regions, such as funding for 

western bark beetle and other suppression projects. The combination of these program component-specific funding decisions reflects both on-going and annual priority work commensurate with regional and national priorities. 

Question 69. Please provide a detailed explanation of the insect and disease problems in each of the western regions and how those challenges colored how forest 

health funding was allocated to each region. 

Answer. Western forests are affected by three major forest insects and diseases: 

a complex of western bark beetles, the western spruce budworm, and dwarf mistletoe. A forest disease, sudden oak death, currently only affects Northern California 

and Southern Oregon but has the high potential to severely impact forests throughout the United States. 

The western bark beetle complex is causing the most serious concerns This complex includes the mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, spruce beetle, and to a 

lesser extent, fir engravers, pine engravers, western pine beetle, and western balsam bark beetle. The most significant of these is the mountain pine beetle. This pest 

is causing tree mortality in every Western State. In FY 2006, nearly 3 million acres 

were reported infested. This number increased to nearly 4 million in FY 2007. Statewide, New Mexico is the least impacted State. 

The western spruce budworm and dwarf mistletoe are found throughout the West. 

Western spruce budworm causes tree defoliation on several million acres each year; 

however, this is far below the peak of over 12 million acres in 1985 and 1986. Dwarf 

mistletoe currently infects over 30 million acres of western forests. Dwarf mistletoe 

is best managed through silvicultural treatments; therefore, Forest Health ManageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA

FS64021408.eps
74

ment funds are not used to control dwarf mistletoe on National Forest System lands 

or cost-shared with States for projects on State and private lands. Specific descriptions and number of acres affected by other forest insects and diseases is summarized in the Forest Health Protection document ‘‘Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States—2006’’. A copy of this report was sent to members of the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in October 2007. Additional copies 

are available upon request. The 2007 conditions report is being compiled and is 

scheduled to be released in June 2008. 

As previously mentioned in the response to question 68, annual pest conditions 

influence the allocation of funds. Distribution of suppression funds considers annual 

conditions along with the risk of future mortality. For example, western bark beetle 

funds are allocated to western regions based on the acres of mortality in the previous year and the risk of mortality depicted through the National Insect and Disease Risk Map process. 

Question 70. How much will be allocated to New Mexico for forest health activities? 

Answer. In FY 2008, the State of New Mexico will receive $385,000 from Forest 

Health Management budget line items in State and Private Forestry and Wildland 

Fire Management. An additional $356,000 is provided for projects on National Forest System lands in New Mexico; $211,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for forest 

health project work on tribal lands; and $10,000 to the Bureau of Land Management 

for a wildland urban interface thinning project. The FY 2009 funding levels will be 

determined after fall 2008 surveys, but are expected to be reduced from the level 

provided in FY 2008. 

Question 71. With regard to hazardous fuels reduction, what is the justification 

for allocating Region 3 approximately a third of the amount of funds allocated to 

Region 5? 

Answer. The Forest Service uses the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization Allocation 

System (HFPAS), a geospatial information and decision support program, to display 

regional funding priorities based on factors such as wildland fire potential, values 

at risk and potential negative consequences, and opportunities to increase our effectiveness by leveraging our efforts with other programs to meet multiple objectives. 

We have used this approach to quantify regional priorities since 2007, and the Department of the Interior has adopted this approach also. 

We have seen that California ranks as our highest priority nationally based on 

the management criteria described here. While Region 3 also has the same kinds 

of risks and opportunities, the cost of treatment in Arizona and New Mexico is on 

average much lower than the costs to work in Region 5. 

Question 72. Why has the Reforestation Trust funding for Region 3 been the lowest among all the regions? 

Answer. The highest priority for the Reforestation Trust Fund is accomplishment 

of reforestation treatments. The available funds are distributed based on the total 

reforestation needs and capability identified by the regions. Region 3’s regeneration 

harvest strategy depends heavily on uneven-aged systems where natural regeneration is the best source for successful reforestation. This results in a lower need for 

artificial regeneration capability relative to other regions. 

Question 73. What impacts will this have in New Mexico? 

Answer. The national forests in New Mexico will continue to depend heavily on 

natural regeneration to meet reforestation objectives. These national forests may 

also use other resources to accomplish their highest priority vegetation management 

objectives, such as National Forest System-Vegetation and Watershed Management 

funds, Knutson-Vandenberg funds, and stewardship contracting authorities. 

Question 74. Could you please provide a detailed analysis of timber salvage sale 

trends for Region 3 and what impact this has had on the funding for timber 

salvages sales for Region 3? 

Answer. The following table shows FY 2003-2008 Salvage Sale Fund budget allocations and timber volumes offered or sold for Region 3. Region 3’s salvage sale collections have been relatively stable. The budget authority for each fiscal year depends on the amount of collections available and qualifying salvage sale opportunities. Over the last few years, the amount of volume produced has gone down as unit 

costs increase.

75

Question 75. What is the justification for Region 3 receiving a significantly lower 

allocation for forest products? 

Answer. In FY 2008, Region 3’s Forest Products net allocation is down from FY 

2007 by about $2.4 million; however allocations to the regions were made considering allocations of other funds such as Salvage Sale Funds, Knutson-Vandenberg 

(K-V) Regional Work funds, and the Purchaser Election—Vegetation Treatment 

funds available for forest health projects. One of the factors in adjusting Forest 

Products funding between regions was a conscious trade-off of Forest Products funds 

for K-V Regional Work funding. Region 3 received $2 million in K-V Regional Work 

funds, which is focused on forest vegetation treatments that produce timber volume 

as an output. In addition, Salvage Sale receipts are down nationally; however, the 

allocation to Region 3 was approximately $350,000 higher than in FY 2007. The Region’s overall funding available for producing forest products is up approximately 

$770,000 relative to FY 2007. 

Question 76. Why is Region 3 allocated the least amount of funds for trails and 

how much will be allocated to New Mexico? 

Answer. Funding allocations for Trails is based on each region’s existing infrastructure of National Forest System trail miles, based on support for general trail 

operations and National Scenic and Historic Trails operations. The Southwestern 

Region (Region 3) manages 6 percent of the agency’s total trail system miles. The 

agency will continue to emphasize distributing funds in areas that maximize recreation delivery, address the highest priority efforts that provide services to the public, and strengthen vital Trails program partnerships in accomplishing stewardship 

work on the ground. In FY 2008, $3 million has been allocated to Region 3 to accomplish this work, of which $1.2 million is planned to be allotted to the national forests 

in the State of New Mexico. These funding amounts do not include budget authority 

for cost pools. 

Question 77. How much of the Region 2 allocation for the Forest Legacy Program 

will go to Wyoming? 

Answer. Region 2 received funds in fiscal year 2007 to assist the State of Wyoming to complete their assessment of need (AON). Wyoming has drafted their AON 

and submitted it to the Forest Service for review. Wyoming will not be eligible to 

receive additional funds until the AON is approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

As a result, Wyoming did not request project funds in 2009, but will be eligible in 

2010. 

Question 78. Why is Region 2 receiving zero funds for wildfire rehabilitation and 

restoration? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2008, Region 2 has been allocated $982,000 in Rehabilitation and Restoration funds that are appropriated through the Wildland Fire Management appropriation and then later transferred to the National Forest System appropriation. The majority of these funds were distributed to regions based on the 

percentage of severely burned acres in each region during the previous 5 years. Region 2 did not receive Wildland Fire Management Rehabilitation and Restoration 

funds identified in the FY 2008 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental 

(P.L 110-116, Division B, Section 157) because these funds were allocated to meet 

the emergency rehabilitation needs created by large-scale wildfire events that occurred in FY 2007. Region 2 did not have any large-scale fire events in FY 2007 

that qualified for these emergency rehabilitation funds. 


FS74021408.eps
76

Question 79. What is the justification for allocating zero funds to Regions 2 and 

10 for stewardship contracting? 

Answer. Neither region requested stewardship contracting budget authority in FY 

2008, thus none was authorized. Forest Products funding is also available for stewardship contracting work. 

Question 80. Please provide an explanation of watershed issues and how this affects allocation decisions for watershed management in Alaska. 

Answer. Watershed issues vary greatly throughout the National Forest System. 

Examples of this variability include: ground water recharge; instream flows; water 

rights and uses; hillslope stabilization; erosion, sedimentation, and nonpoint source 

pollution control (Best Management Practices); and emergency rehabilitation of 

lands damaged by natural events such as floods, wildfires, or hurricanes. 

Regional allocations are based on a base/core program of work as well as need. 

A region’s share of base/core program funds is approximately 90 percent of the previous year’s allocation of the Vegetation and Watershed funds within the ‘‘Maintain 

and Improve Watershed Conditions’’ activity line. The remainder represents a strategic investment to implement individual critical watershed improvement projects 

not funded in base allocations. Some of these funds will be used to remediate identified watershed issues. 

The watershed program recently completed a Performance Assessment Rating 

Tool assessment with the Office of Management and Budget. Following improvement plan recommendations, the Forest Service has developed performance measures to prioritize and track funding allocations for watersheds. These approved 

measures will help us focus allocations on activities that will most effectively improve watershed conditions and maintain watersheds currently in good condition. 

Question 81. Please provide an explanation of the past allocations for state fire 

assistance to New Mexico and how they have impacted fire suppression in the state. 

Answer. Past allocations for competitive western WUI grants (State run) and base 

program funds are distributed to State foresters to fulfill the minimum need for all 

States to maintain and enhance coordination and communication with Federal agencies and supply needed data. An additional percentage is allocated to each State 

based on acres of non-Federal land, population, and level of fire protection required. 

In New Mexico, as well as in other States receiving this assistance, fire management and forest health programs have benefited through a reduction in hazardous 

fuels on non-Federal lands in the WUI and through increased firefighting capacity. 

Question 82. Please explain how reduced funding to state and private assistance 

will affect the ability to fight fires in the State of New Mexico. 

Answer. Funding for New Mexico is based on a number of factors including a competitive grant process, funds allocated through the State and Private re-design process, and traditional allocations based on factors such as population density and 

acres of forested land protected. In most States, these Forest Service funds are combined with other sources to make up the full program. New Mexico’s fire management effectiveness is based on how it uses this combination of funds to meet the 

State’s needs. 

Question 83. Please provide an explanation of FIA issues in New Mexico, and if 

past funding has been sufficient to address those issues. 

Answer. New Mexico has received no forest inventory information for 8 years. 

Since then, the forests have experienced significant impacts from bark beetle outbreaks and drought. Due to past delays in funding a 5-year implementation plan 

(1998-2003) to expand FIA to all 50 States, New Mexico will enter the annualized 

inventory process in late Fiscal Year 2008 as the 47th State. 

Question 84. Please specify how much of the FIA funding will be allocated to New 

Mexico as part of the FY 2009 budget request. 

Answer. The FY 2009 President’s Budget reduces the overall FIA budget by 

$2.588 million. At this time, the allocation to New Mexico has not been determined. 

In FY 2008, $452,000 is being allocated to begin the annualized FIA program in 

New Mexico. The FY 2008 allocation is $650,000 below the total annual cost ($1.1 

million) of delivering FIA in New Mexico. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 85. In Mr. Rey’s testimony he discussed the Forest Service contract extension authority that can help alleviate the current crisis in the lumber market. 

Please explain the extent of the agency’s authority to adjust contracts previously 

sold and the agency’s intended use of that authority at this time. 

Answer. The Forest Service has the authority to extend timber sales in the case 

of a substantial over-riding public interest (SOPI), which in this case relates to the 

current crisis in the lumber market. The Forest Service can extend the time limits 

77

of a contract up to a year at a time, with the maximum length of time not to exceed 

the 10 years authorized by the National Forest Management Act. The Forest Service 

has used the SOPI authority, and will continue to do so as is necessary within the 

authority. 

Question 86. Has the Forest Service instituted ALL of the accountability recommendations issued to the Forest Service fire program by the USDA Office of Inspector General in June 2007? 

Answer. There was not a USDA OIG report issued to Forest Service Fire & Aviation Management in June 2007. However, there was issued the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report 07-655. This report, ‘‘Wildland Fire Management: 

Lack of Clear Goals or Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the 

Costs of Fighting Fires,’’ was released on June 1, 2007 and consisted of five recommendations. The Forest Service has completed actions to fulfill four of the five 

recommendations in the Statement of Action to GAO. Actions are in progress to satisfy GAO Recommendation: Develop a strategy to achieve the clearly defined goals 

and measurable objectives for containing wildland fire. The Forest Service, working 

with OMB, has established a timeline to develop a national risk-based strategy. The 

intent of this strategy is to align incentives, improve accountability, and help control 

costs by allocating resources on the basis of risk. The Forest Service and OMB have 

agreed to an October 2008 completion date. 

Question 87. The Service named fragmentation of landscapes and reduced habitat 

on adjoining private lands as one of the four greatest threats to Forest Service 

lands. The extreme cuts in State and Private Forestry proposed in this budget indicates that addressing that threat is not a priority. What changed? 

Answer. The loss of open space continues to be a threat for private lands and a 

priority for the Forest Service. In December 2007, the Forest Service issued an Open 

Space Conservation Strategy, which identified 4 priorities and 13 action items for 

conserving open space. Many of those action items can be implemented without additional funds. As a result of having to make tough budget decisions, the Forest 

Service budget for 2009 realigns spending to reinforce the agency’s commitment to 

caring for the 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands and providing for 

the highest priority activities that can demonstrate performance in a transparent 

manner. 

Question 88. If these deep cuts in state and private forestry funding are enacted, 

how will the agency continue the cooperative conservation initiatives already begun 

with the states? For instance, good neighbor authority and stewardship contracting 

are important forest health programs that require state and local partners. 

Answer. The Administration’s proposal for the 2008 Farm Bill explicitly includes 

forests, forestry, and NIPF landowners and provides new funding for the same key 

programs for which many cooperators receive funding from the Forest Service. On 

balance, we anticipate net funding available from the proposed programs will exceed 

current amounts, even assuming proposed reductions. As mentioned previously, the 

FY 2009 budget request reflects the Administration’s priorities for supporting national security efforts and sustaining economic growth. The budget focuses on the 

Forest Service serving as a convener of technical expertise and information rather 

than funding projects. 

This budget request focuses on cooperative agreements for fire suppression and 

fuels treatments in the wildland urban interface. Forest Health Management-Federal Lands and State Fire Assistance are close to current levels to maintain investments and protection responsibilities for Federal assets. Remaining programs in 

S&PF are reduced. In the short term, we maintain capacity to provide expertise, 

knowledge, and the ability to bring groups together but with a significant reduction 

of grants. S&PF redesign will help us focus available grant funding. In addition, 

focus on highest priorities will occur, regardless of funding level. State foresters and 

the Forest Service remain committed to a delivery approach that accomplishes targeted goals on a landscape scale. 

Question 89. One of the state forestry programs taking deep cuts is the State Fire 

Assistance account. Can you demonstrate the basis for this cut? 

Answer. The Forest Service, through the State and Private Forestry redesign initiative, is working to ensure that our funds are directed to communities demonstrating the greatest urgency. These communities can use Forest Service grant 

money to leverage other sources of funding to complete the highest priority projects 

in areas where they will have the greatest benefit. Additionally, we will continue 

to actively promote fire prevention and mitigation efforts such as Firewise, a program that provides education and training to local leaders in developing efficient 

and effective mitigation actions for the wildland urban interface. 

Question 90. Are federal firefighters more efficient than state and local agencies? 

78

Answer. Federal, State, and local firefighters work side by side and interchangeably on the fireline. Firefighters are qualified based on specific training and experience criteria; those with like qualifications function at comparable levels of efficiency without regard to agency affiliation. 

Question 91. The Forest Service proposed budget for Land Management Planning 

reflects a commitment to meet the rescissions schedule set for our Forest Plans. 

However, funding levels for Inventory and Monitoring work do not reflect this same 

priority. Are defensible Forest Plans not reliant on Inventory and Monitoring information? 

Answer. Defensible forest plans do rely on inventory and monitoring information. 

Inventory and monitoring data are used for a variety of purposes during the revision 

and implementation of forest plans. Monitoring data are used to conduct annual 

evaluations on progress made towards achieving desired conditions contained in forest plans. Monitoring data are also used in conjunction with new inventory data and 

the results of periodic land management plan development assessments to determine the need for change in forest plans. Plan implementation activities are guided 

by the results of land management plan implementation assessments which are also 

dependent on inventory and monitoring data. 

Question 92. How does the agency plan to meet its commitments without 

prioritizing this vital function? 

Answer. The agency will meet its commitments to revise land management plans 

by funding inventory and monitoring activities that support this work. Inventory 

and monitoring work, like all other agency activities, are prioritized to ensure that 

information collection and analyses are focused around meeting the most important 

business needs of the agency. 

Question 93. Based on this budget estimate for Fiscal Year 2009, the Forest Service is facing what many would call a funding emergency. You are moving money 

from management accounts to fight fire. The core areas of your mission are suffering. At this critical time, why would you devote valuable resources to an 

unproven, experimental program like Ecosystem Services incentives rather than devote resources to the agency’s core management responsibilities? 

Answer. The Ecosystem Service Demonstration Project (ECS-DEP) legislative proposal would not result in agency funds being diverted from our core management 

responsibilities. The 2009 President’s Budget does contain a proposal by which the 

agency can demonstrate a new approach to achieving management objectives on 

public lands. The proposal draws from an increasing awareness and experience on 

the part of the agency and partners with respect to maintaining, enhancing, and 

preserving the multiple benefits derived from public lands in form of ecosystem 

services. The opportunity is to realize through projects of common interest to local 

communities and other partners a means to more effectively, and cost efficiently, obtain mutual public benefits from national forests at greater scales. 

The demonstration projects would not delegate or devolve national forest management responsibility and decision making, but would be designed and implemented 

to be fully consistent and comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and laws. 

Any projects that may be carried out under ECS-DEP would still be consistent with 

the applicable land and resource management plan. While partners may already 

work with the Forest Service to accomplish projects of mutual interest, an ECS-DEP 

project would differ from current opportunities. The proposed new authority would 

permit national forests’ partnering entities to provide the additional means to carry 

out projects on National Forest System lands of benefit to both parties, while capturing economies of scale. The proposed authority would also develop suites of ecosystem services measurement and monitoring tools that would provide valuable information to emerging potential private markets. New under ECS-DEP is a provision similar to the ‘‘Colorado Good Neighbor Authority’’ provided for in Public Law 

106-291, Section 331 (a similar law was enacted in Utah, also). This provision would 

facilitate the timely and cost-effective accomplishment of projects at larger scale 

across multiple ownerships. ECS-DEP also includes a provision to demonstrate the 

connection between management activities and ecosystem services benefits produced 

as a result of the project. Projects accomplished under ECS-DEP may have similar 

outcomes as those conducted under related authorities, but ECS-DEP would not be, 

for example, subject to cost share. Only partner funds or in-kind activities would 

be used to accomplish the work of an ECS-DEP. 

Question 94. In Mr. Rey’s testimony he discussed the Forest Service contract extension authority that can help alleviate the current crisis in the lumber market. 

Please explain the extent of the agency’s authority to adjust contracts previously 

sold and the agency’s intended use of that authority at this time. 

Answer. The Forest Service has the authority to extend timber sales in the case 

of a substantial over-riding public interest (SOPI), which in this case relates to the 

79

current crisis in the lumber market. The Forest Service can extend the time limits 

of a contract up to a year at a time, with the maximum length of time not to exceed 

the 10 years authorized by the National Forest Management Act. The Forest Service 

has used the SOPI authority, and will continue to do so as is necessary within the 

authority. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question 95. It is my understanding that, except in extraordinary circumstances, 

the BLM will use categorical exclusions for the temporary meteorological towers installed to test wind speed and collect weather data before a wind power developer 

even decides whether to pursue a project. Did the Forest Service consider this option? If not, why not? 

Answer. Yes. The categorical exclusion option is available for use by the Forest 

Service’s authorizing officers for meteorological towers, unless there is a finding that 

extraordinary circumstances exist. Environmental evaluation determines if use of a 

categorical exclusion is appropriate. 

Question 96. The Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 31.2(3) allows for a 

categorical exclusion where ‘‘approval, modification, or continuation of minor special 

uses of National Forest System lands that require less than five contiguous acres 

of land’’ and including ‘‘approving the construction of a meteorological sampling 

site.’’ Why would this not apply broadly to the temporary meteorological towers installed by wind developers? 

Answer. The categorical exclusion option does apply broadly and is available for 

use by the authorizing officer, unless there is a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist. An environmental evaluation will determine if use of a categorical 

exclusion is appropriate. 

Question 97. In October 2007, the Cadillac-Manistee Ranger Districts in Michigan 

granted a categorical exclusion for a meteorological tower to test wind speeds and 

collect weather data. Why not expand this Forest Service-wide? 

Answer. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 31.2(3) is an agency-wide categorical exclusion. The categorical exclusion option is available for use by the authorizing officer, unless there is a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist. An 

environmental evaluation will determine if use of a categorical exclusion is appropriate. 

Question 98. Can the Forest Service cite any science that would justify two years 

of pre-installation and three years of post-installation wildlife monitoring for a temporary meteorological tower? 

Answer. The proposed guidelines do not specify that all wildlife monitoring must 

include 2 years of pre-construction and 3 years of post-operations monitoring. The 

proposed guidelines state that ‘‘the authorized official shall determine the length of 

term for pre-construction and post-construction monitoring.’’ (Draft FSH 2609.13 

section 82), as determined by the appropriate level of environmental analyses. The 

intent will be clarified in the final guidelines. 

Question 99. The draft guidelines specify a minimum wildlife monitoring regime 

of two years pre-construction and three years post-operations monitoring for all 

wind projects. Does this proposal take into account demonstrated wildlife impacts 

in various parts of the country? 

Answer. The proposed guidelines do not specify that all wildlife monitoring must 

include 2 years of pre-construction and 3 years of post-operations monitoring. The 

proposed guidelines state that ‘‘the authorized official shall determine the length of 

term for pre-construction and post-construction monitoring’’ (Draft FSH 2609.13 section 82) as proposed by the appropriate level of environmental analysis. The number 

of years over which monitoring may occur are only recommendations, and as such, 

do not preclude the option of using other monitoring methods, and/or other timeframes as needed. 

Pre-project scoping would identify whether any wildlife issues were likely to be 

associated with the proposed project site so that monitoring could be specifically targeted. Every project that requires a National Environmental Policy Act assessment 

takes into account site-specific issues, impacts, and environmental conditions for 

wildlife and all other resources of concern. 

Question 100. The Forest Service requires developers to identify specific turbine 

locations when submitting a site plan. However, at that stage, years before construction, it is impossible for developers to know specific turbine locations or even overall 

project size. Further, the turbine model to be used won’t be know for some time do 

to turbine availability and wind regime characteristics that won’t become clear until 

later in the process. Is the Forest Service familiar with ‘‘corridor permitting,’’ which 

is the standard approach used by state and local agencies? 

80

Answer. Yes, we are familiar with this, but have not considered a specific corridor 

for wind energy development. In coordination with several Federal agencies, the 

Forest Service is currently evaluating national energy corridors in the 11 Western 

States and is beginning to focus on the remaining 39 States. Corridor designation 

is a time-consuming process and requires compliance with all regulations including 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 

Question 101. Corridor permitting allows turbines to be spaced out anywhere 

within a mapped, identified and studied corridor, which provides needed flexibility 

to developers while ensuring full environmental, cultural and other required reviews 

of all possible locations within the corridor. Will the Forest Service consider this 

type of permitting? Are there any obvious legal hurdles to doing so? 

Answer. Currently, the Forest Service is not considering corridor permitting. Corridor designation requires compliance with all regulations including the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and takes time to complete. We do not 

foresee obvious legal hurdles beyond those requirements. 

Question 102. The Forest Service has proposed being allowed to require that turbines be relocated even after a project is operational. Given the financial uncertainty surrounding this requirement—a project that was expected to produce x 

amount of megawatts could produce significantly less if the Forest Service exercised 

this option—it seems unlikely that bankers will finance projects on Forest Service 

lands. Is the Forest Service aware of any instances in which turbines were required 

to be moved in a project where appropriate pre-construction surveys were conducted? 

Answer. Our directives are intended to address unusual circumstances such as 

when the structure becomes a health or safety hazard or when an emergency situation arises resulting from earthquakes or landslides. Removal would normally be required when the permit has expired. This is consistent with actions permitting other 

structures on National Forest System lands. 

Question 103. Can you please explain how the Forest Service arrived at the noise 

restriction of 10 decibels above background noise levels? How does it compare to existing state or local noise requirements for wind projects? 

Answer. The guidelines do not restrict noise levels to 10 decibels at every site. 

The text in Section 73.11c says ‘‘where possible and to the extent feasible’’. The Forest Service recognizes that different wildlife species are sensitive to different noise 

levels above background noise. The draft policy states that the authorized officer 

would ensure, when possible, noise level restrictions to ‘‘avoid habitat abandonment 

or disruption of reproductive activities.’’ The 10 decibels ceiling is consistent with 

the Bureau of Land Management’s Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Chapter 5, for mitigating effects at sage-grouse leks. 

Question 104. The Forest Service recommends white strobe lights. Yet, the FAA 

and FWS recommend red strobe lights. Why did the Forest Service make a different 

recommendation? 

Answer. This is an error in the draft guidelines—both red and white lights are 

recommended. This will be corrected in the final document. 

RESPONSE OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR AKAKA

Question 105a. I am pleased that you have requested $75 million for the Legacy 

Roads and Trails Remediation Program, which is $35.6 million more than the FY 

2008 Enacted level. This Roads Initiative, as you know, addresses the growing problems associated with deteriorating Forest Service roads, including habitat loss, declining water quality, and reduced recreational opportunities, including fishing. The 

Roads Initiative would also provide economic benefits, saving taxpayers up to $1,200 

annually per mile of road in reduced maintenance costs. 

How does the Forest Service plan to implement the program? 

Answer. The FY 2009 Budget Justification does not include a program for Legacy 

Roads and Trails. However, for FY 2008, the Forest Service plans to implement activities that support the program using existing regulations and policies established 

under authority of the Forest Highway Act of 1958 (23 USC 101 & 205), National 

Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964 (16 USC 532 to 538), and Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1974 (16 USC 1608). 

Funds for the authorized FY 2008 program have been allocated to Forest Service 

regions. National reporting of all accomplishments, including detailed reports on selected exemplar projects, will be required. 

The Omnibus made existing mandatory funds available as a discretionary function. The direction in the Bill language for the work to be accomplished with this 

new effort is currently appropriate under existing appropriations including permaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:57 May 20, 2008 Jkt 040443 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\41933.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: MONICA
81

nent and trust appropriations. The agency will continue this work through other existing programs in FY 2009 and beyond. 

Question 105b. Will projects be prioritized based on ‘‘need,’’ or on other criteria, 

such as by geographical region(s)? 

Answer. For FY 2008, funds provided will be used for projects that comply with 

the language contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. Funds will 

be used for ‘‘urgently needed road decommissioning, road and trail repair and maintenance and associated activities, and removal of fish passage barriers, especially 

in areas where Forest Service roads may be contributing to water quality problems 

in streams and water bodies which support threatened, endangered or sensitive species or community water sources and for urgently needed road repairs required due 

to recent storm events.’’ Other considerations include availability of partnership 

funds and capability to award contracts in FY 2008. 

Question 105c. How much of a ‘‘need’’ is there for remediation of Hawaiian forest 

roads? 

Answer. There are no National Forest System lands in Hawaii, and thus there 

are no National Forest System Roads in Hawaii. Appropriations authorized under 

23 USC 205 are only available for construction and maintenance on National Forest 

System Roads (Forest Development Roads).

Æ