[Senate Report 110-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 802
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-370

======================================================================



 
                    FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION ACT

                                _______
                                

                 June 16, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2593]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2593) to establish a program at the 
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to carry out 
collaborative ecological restoration treatments for priority 
forest landscapes on public land, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 
2008''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

  The purpose of this Act is to encourage the collaborative, science-
based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes through a 
process that--
          (1) encourages ecological, economic, and social 
        sustainability;
          (2) leverages local resources with national and private 
        resources;
          (3) facilitates the reduction of wildfire management costs, 
        including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and 
        reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; and
          (4) demonstrates the degree to which--
                  (A) various ecological restoration techniques--
                          (i) achieve ecological and watershed health 
                        objectives; and
                          (ii) affect wildfire activity and management 
                        costs; and
                  (B) the use of forest restoration byproducts can 
                offset treatment costs while benefitting local rural 
                economies and improving forest health.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Collaborative Forest 
        Landscape Restoration Fund established by section 4(f).
          (2) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Collaborative 
        Forest Landscape Restoration Program established under section 
        4(a).
          (3) Proposal.--The term ``proposal'' means a collaborative 
        forest landscape restoration proposal described in section 
        4(b).
          (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service.
          (5) Strategy.--The term ``strategy'' means a landscape 
        restoration strategy described in section 4(b)(1).

SEC. 4. COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
the Interior, shall establish a Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration Program to select and fund ecological restoration 
treatments for priority forest landscapes in accordance with--
          (1) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
        seq.);
          (2) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
        4321 et seq.); and
          (3) any other applicable law.
  (b) Eligibility Criteria.--To be eligible for nomination under 
subsection (c), a collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal 
shall--
          (1) be based on a landscape restoration strategy that--
                  (A) is complete or substantially complete;
                  (B) identifies and prioritizes ecological restoration 
                treatments for a 10-year period within a landscape that 
                is--
                          (i) at least 50,000 acres;
                          (ii) comprised primarily of forested National 
                        Forest System land, but may also include land 
                        under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
                        Management, land under the jurisdiction of the 
                        Bureau of Indian Affairs, or other Federal, 
                        State, tribal, or private land;
                          (iii) in need of active ecosystem 
                        restoration; and
                          (iv) accessible by existing or proposed wood-
                        processing infrastructure at an appropriate 
                        scale to use woody biomass and small-diameter 
                        wood removed in ecological restoration 
                        treatments;
                  (C) incorporates the best available science and 
                scientific application tools in ecological restoration 
                strategies;
                  (D) fully maintains, or contributes toward the 
                restoration of, the structure and composition of old 
                growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old 
                growth conditions characteristic of the forest type, 
                taking into account the contribution of the stand to 
                landscape fire adaptation and watershed health and 
                retaining the large trees contributing to old growth 
                structure;
                  (E) would carry out any forest restoration treatments 
                that reduce hazardous fuels by--
                          (i) focusing on small diameter trees, 
                        thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and fire use 
                        to modify fire behavior, as measured by the 
                        projected reduction of uncharacteristically 
                        severe wildfire effects for the forest type 
                        (such as adverse soil impacts, tree mortality 
                        or other impacts); and
                          (ii) maximizing the retention of large trees, 
                        as appropriate for the forest type, to the 
                        extent that the trees promote fire-resilient 
                        stands; and
                  (F)(i) does not include the establishment of 
                permanent roads; and
                  (ii) would commit funding to decommission all 
                temporary roads constructed to carry out the strategy;
          (2) be developed and implemented through a collaborative 
        process that--
                  (A) includes multiple interested persons representing 
                diverse interests; and
                  (B)(i) is transparent and nonexclusive; or
                  (ii) meets the requirements for a resource advisory 
                committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section 
                205 of Public Law 106-393 (16 U.S.C. 500 note);
          (3) describe plans to--
                  (A) reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, 
                including through the use of fire for ecological 
                restoration and maintenance and reestablishing natural 
                fire regimes, where appropriate;
                  (B) improve fish and wildlife habitat, including for 
                endangered, threatened, and sensitive species;
                  (C) maintain or improve water quality and watershed 
                function;
                  (D) prevent, remediate, or control invasions of 
                exotic species;
                  (E) maintain, decommission, and rehabilitate roads 
                and trails;
                  (F) use woody biomass and small-diameter trees 
                produced from projects implementing the strategy;
                  (G) report annually on performance, including through 
                performance measures from the plan entitled the ``10 
                Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan'' and 
                dated December 2006; and
                  (H) take into account any applicable community 
                wildfire protection plan;
          (4) analyze any anticipated cost savings, including those 
        resulting from--
                  (A) reduced wildfire management costs; and
                  (B) a decrease in the unit costs of implementing 
                ecological restoration treatments over time;
          (5) estimate--
                  (A) the annual Federal funding necessary to implement 
                the proposal; and
                  (B) the amount of new non-Federal investment for 
                carrying out the proposal that would be leveraged;
          (6) describe the collaborative process through which the 
        proposal was developed, including a description of--
                  (A) participation by or consultation with State, 
                local, and Tribal governments; and
                  (B) any established record of successful 
                collaborative planning and implementation of ecological 
                restoration projects on National Forest System land and 
                other land included in the proposal by the 
                collaborators; and
          (7) benefit local economies by providing local employment or 
        training opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements 
        for restoration planning, design, implementation, or monitoring 
        with--
                  (A) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative 
                entities;
                  (B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related 
                partnerships, with State, local, and non-profit youth 
                groups;
                  (C) existing or proposed small or micro-businesses, 
                clusters, or incubators; or
                  (D) other entities that will hire or train local 
                people to complete such contracts, grants, or 
                agreements; and
          (8) be subject to any other requirements that the Secretary, 
        in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines 
        to be necessary for the efficient and effective administration 
        of the program.
  (c) Nomination Process.--
          (1) Submission.--A proposal shall be submitted to--
                  (A) the appropriate Regional Forester; and
                  (B) if actions under the jurisdiction of the 
                Secretary of the Interior are proposed, the 
                appropriate--
                          (i) State Director of the Bureau of Land 
                        Management;
                          (ii) Regional Director of the Bureau of 
                        Indian Affairs; or
                          (iii) other official of the Department of the 
                        Interior.
          (2) Nomination.--
                  (A) In general.--A Regional Forester may nominate for 
                selection by the Secretary any proposals that meet the 
                eligibility criteria established by subsection (b).
                  (B) Concurrence.--Any proposal nominated by the 
                Regional Forester that proposes actions under the 
                jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior shall 
                include the concurrence of the appropriate--
                          (i) State Director of the Bureau of Land 
                        Management;
                          (ii) Regional Director of the Bureau of 
                        Indian Affairs; or
                          (iii) other official of the Department of the 
                        Interior.
          (3) Documentation.--With respect to each proposal that is 
        nominated under paragraph (2)--
                  (A) the appropriate Regional Forester shall--
                          (i) include a plan to use Federal funds 
                        allocated to the region to fund those costs of 
                        planning and carrying out ecological 
                        restoration treatments on National Forest 
                        System land, consistent with the strategy, that 
                        would not be covered by amounts transferred to 
                        the Secretary from the Fund; and
                          (ii) provide evidence that amounts proposed 
                        to be transferred to the Secretary from the 
                        Fund during the first 2 fiscal years following 
                        selection would be used to carry out ecological 
                        restoration treatments consistent with the 
                        strategy during the same fiscal year in which 
                        the funds are transferred to the Secretary;
                  (B) if actions under the jurisdiction of the 
                Secretary of the Interior are proposed, the nomination 
                shall include a plan to fund such actions, consistent 
                with the strategy, by the appropriate--
                          (i) State Director of the Bureau of Land 
                        Management;
                          (ii) Regional Director of the Bureau of 
                        Indian Affairs; or
                          (iii) other official of the Department of the 
                        Interior; and
                  (C) if actions on land not under the jurisdiction of 
                the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior are 
                proposed, the appropriate Regional Forester shall 
                provide evidence that the landowner intends to 
                participate in, and provide appropriate funding to 
                carry out, the actions.
  (d) Selection Process.--
          (1) In general.--After consulting with the advisory panel 
        established under subsection (e), the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall, subject 
        to paragraph (2), select the best proposals that--
                  (A) have been nominated under subsection (c)(2); and
                  (B) meet the eligibility criteria established by 
                subsection (b).
          (2) Criteria.--In selecting proposals under paragraph (1), 
        the Secretary shall give special consideration to--
                  (A) the strength of the proposal and strategy;
                  (B) the strength of the ecological case of the 
                proposal and the proposed ecological restoration 
                strategies;
                  (C) the strength of the collaborative process and the 
                likelihood of successful collaboration throughout 
                implementation;
                  (D) whether the proposal is likely to achieve 
                reductions in long-term wildfire management costs;
                  (E) whether the proposal would reduce the relative 
                costs of carrying out ecological restoration treatments 
                as a result of the use of woody biomass and small-
                diameter trees; and
                  (F) whether an appropriate level of non-Federal 
                investment would be leveraged in carrying out the 
                proposal.
          (3) Limitation.--The Secretary may select not more than--
                  (A) 10 proposals to be funded during any fiscal year;
                  (B) 2 proposals in any 1 region of the National 
                Forest System to be funded during any fiscal year; and
                  (C) the number of proposals that the Secretary 
                determines are likely to receive adequate funding.
  (e) Advisory Panel.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and maintain 
        an advisory panel comprised of not more than 15 members to 
        evaluate, and provide recommendations on, each proposal that 
        has been nominated under subsection (c)(2).
          (2) Representation.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
        membership of the advisory panel is fairly balanced in terms of 
        the points of view represented and the functions to be 
        performed by the advisory panel.
          (3) Inclusion.--The advisory panel shall include experts in 
        ecological restoration, fire ecology, fire management, rural 
        economic development, strategies for ecological adaptation to 
        climate change, fish and wildlife ecology, and woody biomass 
        and small-diameter tree utilization.
  (f) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund.--
          (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
        the United States a fund, to be known as the ``Collaborative 
        Forest Landscape Restoration Fund'', to be used to pay up to 50 
        percent of the cost of carrying out and monitoring ecological 
        restoration treatments on National Forest System land for each 
        proposal selected to be carried out under subsection (d).
          (2) Inclusion.--The cost of carrying out ecological 
        restoration treatments as provided in paragraph (1) may, as the 
        Secretary determines to be appropriate, include cancellation 
        and termination costs required to be obligated for contracts to 
        carry out ecological restoration treatments on National Forest 
        System land for each proposal selected to be carried out under 
        subsection (d).
          (3) Contents.--The Fund shall consist of such amounts as are 
        appropriated to the Fund under paragraph (6).
          (4) Expenditures from fund.--
                  (A) In general.--On request by the Secretary, the 
                Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the Fund 
                to the Secretary such amounts as the Secretary 
                determines are appropriate, in accordance with 
                paragraph (1).
                  (B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not expend money 
                from the Fund on any 1 proposal--
                          (i) during a period of more than 10 fiscal 
                        years; or
                          (ii) in excess of $4,000,000 in any 1 fiscal 
                        year.
          (5) Accounting and reporting system.--The Secretary shall 
        establish an accounting and reporting system for the Fund.
          (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Fund $40,000,000 for each of fiscal 
        years 2009 through 2019, to remain available until expended.
  (g) Program Implementation and Monitoring.--
          (1) Work plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
        which a proposal is selected to be carried out, the Secretary 
        shall create, in collaboration with the interested persons, an 
        implementation work plan and budget to implement the proposal 
        that includes--
                  (A) a description of the manner in which the proposal 
                would be implemented to achieve ecological and 
                community economic benefit, including capacity building 
                to accomplish restoration;
                  (B) a business plan that addresses--
                          (i) the anticipated unit treatment cost 
                        reductions over 10 years;
                          (ii) the anticipated costs for infrastructure 
                        needed for the proposal;
                          (iii) the projected sustainability of the 
                        supply of woody biomass and small-diameter 
                        trees removed in ecological restoration 
                        treatments; and
                          (iv) the projected local economic benefits of 
                        the proposal; and
                  (C) documentation of the non-Federal investment in 
                the priority landscape, including the sources and uses 
                of the investments; and
                  (D) a plan to decommission any temporary roads 
                established to carry out the proposal.
          (2) Project implementation.--Amounts transferred to the 
        Secretary from the Fund shall be used to carry out ecological 
        restoration treatments that are--
                  (A) consistent with the proposal and strategy; and
                  (B) identified through the collaborative process 
                described in subsection (b)(2).
          (3) Annual report.--The Secretary, in collaboration with the 
        Secretary of the Interior and interested persons, shall prepare 
        an annual report on the accomplishments of each selected 
        proposal that includes--
                  (A) a description of all acres (or other appropriate 
                unit) treated and restored through projects 
                implementing the strategy;
                  (B) an evaluation of progress, including performance 
                measures and how prior year evaluations have 
                contributed to improved project performance;
                  (C) a description of community benefits achieved, 
                including any local economic benefits;
                  (D) the results of the multiparty monitoring, 
                evaluation, and accountability process under paragraph 
                (4); and
                  (E) a summary of the costs of--
                          (i) treatments; and
                          (ii) relevant fire management activities.
          (4) Multiparty monitoring.--The Secretary shall, in 
        collaboration with the Secretary of the Interior and interested 
        persons, use a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and 
        accountability process to assess the positive or negative 
        ecological, social, and economic effects of projects 
        implementing a selected proposal for not less than 15 years 
        after project implementation commences.
  (h) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the first fiscal year in 
which funding is made available to carry out ecological restoration 
projects under the program, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
submit a report on the program, including an assessment of whether, and 
to what extent, the program is fulfilling the purposes of this Act, 
to--
          (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
        Senate;
          (2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
          (3) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
        Representatives; and
          (4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
        Representatives.
  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior such 
sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of S. 2593, the Forest Landscape Restoration 
Act, is to establish a program at the Forest Service and the 
Department of the Interior to select, fund, and carry out 
landscape-scale restoration projects on National Forests and 
other land through a process that encourages collaboration, 
relies on the best available science, facilitates local 
economic development, and leverages local funds with national 
and private funding.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEED

    On September 8, 2000, the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture issued a report to the President that became known 
as the ``National Fire Plan.'' One of the goals of that plan 
was to restore landscapes by working collaboratively with 
communities to develop and implement forest restoration 
projects and to utilize the restoration byproducts to foster 
local economic development. Since 2000, the scientific, 
economic, and social interest in landscape-scale forest 
restoration has grown significantly.
    Landscape-scale restoration is important for a number of 
reasons. First, particularly in forest-types historically 
characterized by frequent, low-intensity wildfires, landscape-
scale restoration is a key to controlling unnaturally intense 
wildfire behavior and, as a result, wildfire suppression costs. 
Wildland fire appropriations nearly quadrupled between 1996 and 
2005, and they continue to grow. In both of fiscal years 2006 
and 2007, the Federal agencies spent nearly $2 billion on 
wildfire suppression. By depriving wildfires of unnatural 
accumulations of fuel, restoration treatments can significantly 
reduce the intensity and increase the manageability of 
wildfires, which translates into reduced fire-suppression 
costs.
    Second, landscape-scale treatments are seen as necessary 
for restoring the health of forest ecosystems that have been 
impaired by fire-suppression and land uses that permitted 
unnatural accumulations of vegetation. Many landscapes in such 
forests also are threatened by invasive species, deteriorating 
road and trail systems, and climate change, for example. In 
such cases, a strategic, landscape restoration approach often 
is necessary not only to reduce the risks of unnaturally 
intense and frequent wildfires, but also to restore watershed 
function, fish and wildlife habitat, and general ecosystem 
health.
    Finally, landscape-scale restoration is an important 
component of successful economic utilization of small-diameter 
trees and woody biomass. Large-scale forest restoration efforts 
can help to provide economies-of-scale, and long-term efforts 
can help to provide entrepreneurs with the confidence that 
encourages initiative and investment. Economic utilization of 
such byproducts can, in turn, help to defray the costs of 
restoration.
    Despite the importance of landscape-scale restoration and 
its ecological, fiscal, and economic benefits, it remains 
largely untested (at least as contemplated by S. 2593). 
Weaknesses in planning and prioritizing restoration treatments 
have discouraged true landscape-scale restoration. In addition, 
the large costs associated with landscape-scale restoration 
efforts make them extremely difficult to fit within local or 
regional agency budgets. A December 2004 report of the Western 
Governors' Association captured these concerns by highlighting 
``the need for a landscape-level vision for restoration of 
forests'', along with a ``strong call for improved 
collaboration'', ``committed long-term funding'', improved 
``monitoring of accomplishments'', and ``promoting fire as a 
management tool''.
    S. 2593 responds to these challenges by establishing a 
collaborative process that relies on the best-available science 
to plan and prioritize landscape restoration efforts on 
National Forests and other lands. It also establishes a 
competitive, long-term funding mechanism that supplements local 
resources and encourages non-Federal support in carrying out 
priority landscape restoration efforts.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Feinstein, and others 
introduced S. 2593 on February 5, 2008. The Subcommittee on 
Public Lands and Forests held a hearing on S. 2593 on April 1, 
2008. At its business meeting on May 7, 2008, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2593 favorably 
reported, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 
open business session on May 7, 2008, by voice vote of a quorum 
present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 2593, if amended as 
described herein.

                          COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

    During its consideration of S. 2593, the Committee adopted 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment 
clarifies and emphasizes the role of the Secretary of the 
Interior in the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program, a reflection of the importance of collaboration among 
the Forest Service and other agencies within the Department of 
the Interior in developing, considering, selecting, and 
implementing collaborative forest landscape restoration 
proposals. The amendment mandates a single panel to advise the 
Secretaries during the selection process instead of authorizing 
both a scientific and technical advisory panel. Also, included 
in the amendment is language requiring funding to decommission 
temporary roads, underscoring the importance of watershed 
health and improving watershed function as part of landscape 
restoration, clarifying the role of successfully pre-
established collaboration in the eligibility criteria, 
emphasizing local economic development, expanding the uses of 
the Fund to include monitoring and certain contracting costs, 
and making other technical and conforming improvements. The 
amendment is described in detail in the section-by-section 
analysis below.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 contains the short title of the bill.
    Section 2 states the purpose of the bill.
    Section 3 provides the definitions for the bill.
    Section 4(a) directs the Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Interior, to establish the Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Program (``Program'') to select 
and fund ecological restoration treatments for priority forest 
landscapes. Subsection (a) also clarifies that the restoration 
treatments are to be carried out in accordance with applicable 
law, including appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 
evaluation of specific projects that are proposed by Federal 
agencies to implement those collaborative forest landscape 
restoration proposals that are selected by the Secretary.
    Subsection (b) establishes the criteria that a 
collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal 
(``proposal'') must meet to be eligible for nomination by the 
Regional Forester for selection and funding through the 
Program.
    Paragraph (1) describes the landscape restoration strategy 
(``strategy'') that forms the foundation for the proposal and, 
ultimately, for the strategic implementation of restoration 
projects across the covered landscape.
    Subparagraph (A) provides that the strategy must be 
complete or substantially complete when the proposal is 
submitted so agency decision-makers and advisors have 
sufficient information on which to base their nominating and 
selection decisions and so managers have concrete guidance to 
implement the proposal if it is selected. At the same time, 
this provision leaves sufficient flexibility to improve the 
strategy over time (e.g., through feedback during the 
nomination and selection processes and through adaptive 
management during implementation).
    Subparagraph (B) provides that the strategy must identify 
and prioritize proposed ecological restoration treatments 
within a landscape for a 10-year period. Actual restoration of 
the landscape may require more than 10 years of effort (as 
would monitoring and maintenance), but the bill contemplates no 
more than 10 years of funding through the Program.
    Clause (i) requires the landscape to consist of at least 
50,000 acres. The strategy may call for active restoration 
treatment of only a portion of those acres. Ultimately, the 
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that restoration 
occurs at a sufficient scale to appreciably improve wildfire 
behavior and management costs, to restore natural ecosystem and 
watershed functions, and to facilitate appropriate utilization 
of woody biomass and small-diameter wood.
    Clause (ii) requires the landscape to be composed primarily 
of forested National Forest System land, though it also makes 
clear that other land ownerships and types may be included.
    Clause (iii) requires that the landscape be in need of 
active ecosystem restoration. This clause calls for an 
ecological justification and approach to landscape restoration, 
again recognizing that it may be that only a portion of the 
landscape needs to be actively restored to appreciably improve 
landscape-scale ecosystem and watershed function.
    Clause (iv) requires the landscape to be accessible by 
existing or proposed wood-processing infrastructure at an 
appropriate scale to use woody biomass and small-diameter wood 
removed in ecological restoration treatments. This provision 
recognizes that economic utilization of ecological restoration 
byproducts is a critical element of the program, while at the 
same time making clear that the Program is not intended to 
encourage the development of wood utilization infrastructure at 
a scale that would adversely affect the long-term ecological 
sustainability of the area. This provision also makes clear 
that communities that currently do not have appropriate 
infrastructure are not disadvantaged, as they may propose new 
infrastructure to use woody biomass and small-diameter wood 
that is removed in ecological restoration treatments to fully 
satisfy this requirement. At the same time, this provision is 
not intended to disadvantage communities merely because they 
have existing infrastructure capacity that may surpass the 
scale necessary to implement the proposal, as the proposal may 
rely on using a portion of that capacity to carry out the 
proposal.
    Subparagraph (C) requires the strategy to incorporate the 
best available science and scientific application tools (such 
as vegetation and fuels models) in ecological restoration 
strategies. To a considerable degree, landscape restoration 
remains experimental, and this provision emphasizes the 
critical role of science in directing the restoration.
    Subparagraph (D) requires the strategy to incorporate (and 
projects to comply with) specific direction for retaining and 
restoring old-growth stands.
    Subparagraph (E) provides specific direction for the 
strategy and project implementation requiring hazardous fuels 
reduction to focus on small diameter trees, thinning, strategic 
fuel breaks, and fire use, and to maximize the retention of 
large trees, as appropriate for the forest type and to the 
extent that the trees promote fire-resilient stands.
    Subparagraph (F) prohibits establishing permanent roads as 
part of the restoration strategy or project implementation and 
requires a commitment to fund the decommissioning of all 
temporary roads constructed to carry out the strategy. This 
provision does not preclude maintaining or reconstructing 
existing roads as part of the strategy, as doing so may have 
significant watershed, ecological, and fire management 
benefits. It is the Committee's understanding that existing 
Forest Service policy requires temporary roads to be 
decommissioned by the conclusion of the contract, permit, 
lease, or other document that authorizes the restoration 
activity, and the requirement in clause (ii) reflects that 
policy.
    Paragraph (2) requires that each proposal be developed and 
implemented through a collaborative process that meets the 
specified requirements. A resource advisory committee that 
meets the appointment, composition, majority vote, and other 
requirements of the specified subsections of the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 106-393) 
would satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), regardless 
of whether the specific authorities of that Act have expired. 
Such resource advisory committees have fostered successful 
collaboration in the context of National Forest restoration 
projects, and this provision recognizes that they may 
appropriately play a long-term role through the Program. There 
is no requirement that the Forest Service or other Federal 
agencies participate in developing the proposal (though such 
participation certainly is appropriate, and it likely would 
strengthen the proposal and significantly increase the chances 
of nomination, selection, and effective implementation).
    Paragraph (3) requires the proposal to specifically 
describe plans to accomplish some of the key goals of the 
Program, if selected, including plans to (A) reduce the risk of 
uncharacteristic wildfire and, where appropriate, to 
reestablish natural fire regimes through the use of fire 
(prescribed and wildland fire use), (B) improve fish and 
wildlife habitat, (C) maintain or improve water quality and 
watershed function, (D) respond to invasive species, (E) 
maintain, decommission, and rehabilitate roads and trails, (F) 
use woody biomass and small-diameter trees, (G) report annually 
on implementation performance, and (H) consider applicable 
community wildfire protection plans.
    Paragraph (4) requires the proposal to include an analysis 
of any anticipated cost savings, including (but not necessarily 
limited to) those resulting from reduced wildfire management 
costs and any decrease in the unit costs of implementing 
ecological restoration treatments over time. The latter 
provision's reference to ``unit costs'' recognizes that the 
most appropriate unit of measurement may not be cost-per-acre-
treated and will vary with the circumstances.
    Paragraph (5) requires the proposal to estimate the annual 
Federal funding necessary to implement the proposal and the 
amount of new non-Federal investment for carrying out the 
proposal that would be leveraged (e.g., financial or in-kind 
contributions from foundations and other non-governmental 
organizations, State government, and private investors).
    Paragraph (6) requires the proposal to include a 
description of the collaborative process through which the 
proposal was developed. Subparagraph (A) emphasizes the 
importance of including--or at least consulting with--
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments. 
Subparagraph (B) requires a description of whether the 
collaborative group has an established record of successful 
planning and implementation of ecological restoration projects 
with the Forest Service and other relevant land managers. A 
strong track-record is an important indicator of a functional 
collaborative process and that the proposal is relatively 
likely to be carried out effectively and efficiently if 
selected.
    Paragraph (7) requires the proposal to benefit local 
economies by providing certain local employment or training 
opportunities. Specifically, the proposal must generate local 
economic opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements 
for restoration planning, design, implementation, or monitoring 
with certain local parties, including youth corps, small 
businesses (as defined by the Small Business Administration), 
micro-businesses, business clusters, or business incubators. 
Although proposals cannot pre-determine the Federal agencies' 
ultimate decisions regarding how, when, and with whom 
contracts, grants, and agreements would be made if the proposal 
is selected, the proposal can and must demonstrate that 
selection and implementation of the proposal would provide 
``opportunities'' for local economic development, and it should 
describe how local interests are prepared to pursue those 
opportunities. There also may be opportunities to demonstrate 
that the proposal will benefit the local economy as a result of 
existing relationships with the Forest Service and other 
Federal agencies or with non-Federal parties.
    Paragraph (8) states that the Secretary, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Interior, may call for proposals to 
include additional information or to meet other requirements 
that are necessary for the efficient and effective 
administration of the Program.
    Subsection (c) describes the nomination process for 
proposals. The bill leaves much of the nomination process to 
the Secretaries' discretion. It is important to the integrity 
of the Program, however, that the nomination process be fair 
and transparent with meaningful consideration and careful, 
competitive selection. Nothing in this subsection precludes the 
Regional Forester (and other appropriate officials) from 
establishing a formal or informal pre-proposal process that 
facilitates the submission of strong proposals with broad 
support. Analogous programs have benefited significantly from 
such a process, and they certainly would be within the spirit 
of the bill.
    Paragraph (1) states that each proposal must be submitted 
to the Regional Forester for consideration. If actions under 
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior are proposed, 
the proposal also must be submitted to the appropriate official 
of the Department of the Interior.
    Paragraph (2) states that the Regional Forester may 
nominate proposals for consideration and potential selection by 
the Secretary. If actions under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of the Interior are proposed, the appropriate 
official of the Department of the Interior must concur in the 
nomination.
    Paragraph (3) requires certain documentation for each 
proposal that is nominated by the Regional Forester.
    Subparagraph (A)(i) requires the Regional Forester to 
include a plan to fund the planning and implementation costs of 
projects proposed for National Forest System land that would 
not be covered by the Fund. This requirement is intended to 
ensure that there will be adequate funding to efficiently and 
effectively carry out each proposal that is selected. Clause 
(ii) requires the Regional Forester to provide evidence that, 
during the first two years after selection, money from the Fund 
would be used to carry out ecological restoration treatments 
during the same fiscal year in which the funds are transferred 
to the Secretary. This provision is intended to provide 
assurance from the Regional Forester that the Forest Service 
has the capacity (e.g., staffing and existing project 
decisions) at the local and regional level to promptly begin 
on-the-ground restoration projects that are consistent with the 
strategy with the funds that are provided.
    Subparagraph (B) requires the appropriate official in the 
Department of the Interior to include a plan to fund any 
actions proposed to be carried out by the Secretary of the 
Interior.
    Subparagraph (C) requires that if actions on land not under 
the jurisdiction of the Secretary or the Secretary of the 
Interior are contemplated (e.g. private, State, or other 
Federal land), then the Regional Forester must provide evidence 
that each owner of such land will support and participate in 
the effort.
    Subsection (d) describes the selection process for 
proposals that have been nominated by the Regional Forester for 
consideration by the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
Interior.
    Paragraph (1) directs the Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Interior and the advisory panels, to 
select the best proposals that meet the eligibility criteria 
established by subsection (b) and have been nominated pursuant 
to subsection (c). Selection of a proposal makes it eligible 
for funding through the Program.
    Paragraph (2) requires the Secretary to give special 
consideration in selecting proposals to six criteria. The six 
criteria capture the most important goals of the Program and 
are intended to be given great weight. These criteria are not 
exclusive, however, and the advisory panels and the Secretary 
may rely on additional considerations that further the purposes 
of the Program in forming their recommendations and making 
selections of the best proposals.
    Subparagraph (A) provides the first criterion: the strength 
of the landscape restoration proposal and strategy. This 
provision requires a general evaluation of the likelihood that 
the proposal and the strategy will successfully guide their 
implementation in a way that efficiently and effectively 
achieves their goals (considering the purposes of the Program 
and the eligibility criteria).
    Subparagraph (B) provides the second criterion: the 
strength of the ecological case of the proposal for landscape 
restoration and the proposed ecological restoration strategies. 
This requires an ecological evaluation of the need for active 
ecological restoration, whether the proposed restoration 
strategies are best suited to improve ecosystem and watershed 
function, and the degree to which those strategies will improve 
ecosystem and watershed function.
    Subparagraph (C) provides the third criterion: the strength 
of the collaborative process and the likelihood of successful 
collaboration throughout implementation. Experience shows that 
projects that enjoy strong collaborative support are far less 
likely to devolve into controversy and associated appeals and 
litigation, and are more likely to be efficiently and 
effectively implemented. Elements of strong collaboration in 
this context include the degree to which stakeholders 
representing the diversity of interested parties are included 
in the collaborative process and the extent to which the 
collaborators have an established record of successful 
collaborative planning and implementation of ecological 
restoration projects with the Forest Service and other 
participating agencies and entities.
    Subparagraph (D) provides the fourth criterion: whether the 
proposal is likely to achieve reductions in long-term wildfire 
management costs. Reducing wildfire management is a critical 
challenge and an important goal of the Program. This criterion 
requires a technical evaluation of whether the proposal is 
likely to improve wildfire behavior and management. It 
recognizes that reductions in wildfire management may not be 
achieved over the short-term and that the long-term efforts 
that may be necessary to maintain such improvements should be 
considered. This criterion is not intended to give varying 
weight to proposals based simply on the amount of cost 
reduction they would achieve, as the appropriate amount of 
reduction will vary based on the circumstances.
    Subparagraph (E) provides the fifth criterion: whether the 
proposal would reduce the relative costs of carrying out 
treatments as a result of the use of woody biomass and small-
diameter trees. Biomass utilization from forest restoration is 
an ongoing financial challenge for Federal agencies and an 
economic challenge for local communities, and it is an 
important element of the Program. This criterion requires 
consideration of whether any costs would be reduced as a result 
of biomass and small-diameter tree utilization. It is not 
intended to give varying weight to proposals based simply on 
the amount of cost reduction they would achieve, as different 
communities, landscapes, and other circumstances generate 
different capacities to produce such reductions and the 
appropriate amount of reduction therefore will vary.
    Subparagraph (F) provides the sixth criterion: whether an 
appropriate level of non-Federal investment would be leveraged 
in carrying out the proposal. This provision does not require 
any specific level of non-Federal funding (i.e., there is no 
required ``match''), and what level is appropriate would depend 
on all of the circumstances, including the varying capacities 
of different communities.
    Paragraph (3) prohibits the Secretary from (A) selecting 
more than ten proposals for funding during any given year, (B) 
selecting more than two proposals in any single region of the 
National Forest System to be funded during any given year, or 
(C) selecting more than the number of proposals that the 
Secretary believes are likely to receive adequate funding. 
These limitations reflect the experimental nature of landscape-
scale restoration, the realities of available funding to carry 
out such large projects, and the importance of selecting a 
geographically diverse set of proposals. The Committee 
anticipates that each selected project will require roughly $2 
to $3 million per year from the Fund. That amount, when 
combined with the other agency funds, should provide a 
realistic sum to carry out a landscape-scale restoration 
proposal, while leaving enough money in the Fund to 
simultaneously carry out a number of other proposals. 
Subparagraph (C) recognizes the importance of adequate and 
predictable project funding to the success of the Program 
(particularly the economic development component). The 
Secretary should use his best judgment considering all of the 
relevant factors in making this determination, and should not 
rely exclusively on the President's budget proposal.
    Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to establish and 
maintain an advisory panel to independently evaluate each 
proposal that has been nominated and provide recommendations 
for selection to the Secretaries based on that evaluation. 
Experience has shown that such panels play an important role in 
supporting a fair, rigorous, and merit-based competitive 
process. In order to control costs, paragraph (1) sets an upper 
limit of 15 members. As an advisory committee, the panel will 
be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and paragraph 
(2) comports with section 5(b) of that Act by requiring the 
panel to be fairly balanced. Given the complexity and 
experimental nature of landscape-scale restoration, it is 
particularly important to have experts aid the Secretaries in 
evaluating the proposals (and the strategies on which they are 
based), as provided for by the selection criteria. Paragraph 
(3) requires the panel to include (though not be limited to) a 
number of experts in various specified disciplines that are 
necessary to evaluating proposals in light of the most 
important purposes of the Program.
    Subsection (f) establishes the Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration Fund, which may be used to pay up to 50 
percent of the costs of carrying out and monitoring ecological 
restoration treatments on National Forest System land for each 
proposal that is selected by the Secretary. The remainder of 
the costs of carrying out each proposal on National Forest 
System land are to be paid by Regional and local Forest Service 
offices (as provided by subsection (c)(3)(A)) through other 
appropriations (and leveraged funds, if available). While money 
from the Fund only is available for work on National Forest 
System land, the Committee notes that the Forest Service has 
existing authorities to assist communities and non-Federal 
landowners that are interested in participating in the Program 
and that additional funding is authorized by subsection (i) to 
support these existing authorities and other participating 
Federal agencies.
    Paragraph (2) provides that the Secretary also is 
authorized to use the Fund to cover 50 percent of any 
cancellation and termination costs that are required to be 
obligated for implementing contracts (as is required for multi-
year contracts under 17.104(c) of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations).
    Paragraph (3) provides that the Fund is to consist of up to 
$40 million per year that is authorized for appropriation for 
up to ten years.
    Paragraph (4) provides for the transfer of funds from the 
Treasury to the Secretary. The Committee's amendment limits the 
Secretary from using money from the Fund to support any 
proposal for a period of more than 10 years or in an amount 
greater than $4,000,000 in any one year. These provisions 
reflect the intent that the Program support each proposal for a 
maximum of ten years (though landscape restoration may continue 
under other authorities thereafter) and to support a diversity 
of proposals. As indicated earlier in this report, the 
Committee anticipates that $2 to $3 million per year from the 
Fund (which would be combined with at least that much from 
other sources) is likely to provide sufficient support for the 
proposals that are contemplated.
    Paragraph (5) directs the Secretary to establish a 
reporting and accounting system for the Fund.
    Paragraph (6) authorizes appropriations of $40 million per 
year to the Fund through fiscal year 2019.
    Subsection (g) establishes a number of requirements for 
implementing selected proposals.
    Paragraph (1) requires the Secretary, in collaboration with 
interested stakeholders (including any other participating 
Federal agencies), to develop for each selected proposal an 
implementation work plan and budget that includes: (A) a 
discussion of how the proposal will be implemented, (B) a 
business plan focused on appropriately achieving the economic 
sustainability goals of the proposal, (C) information regarding 
the non-Federal investments that are expected or have been 
committed to the proposal, and (D) a work plan and budget for 
decommissioning any temporary roads established to carry out 
the proposal. The requirement to develop a work plan and budget 
recognizes that many of the details of implementation will be 
beyond the scope of the proposal and strategy, but that it will 
nevertheless be necessary to plan and document many of those 
details at the outset of the implementation phase.
    Paragraph (2) requires amounts from the Fund to be used to 
carry out ecological restoration treatments in a manner that is 
consistent with the landscape restoration proposal and 
strategy. Subparagraph (A) ensures that money from the Fund is 
used for on-the-ground restoration in a manner that maintains 
the integrity of the proposal and strategy, while at the same 
time leaving sufficient flexibility to allow adaptive 
management. Subparagraph (B) ensures that the collaborative 
process maintains a key role in identifying the projects to 
implement the proposal and strategy.
    Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Interior and interested stakeholders, to 
prepare an annual report to be available for Congress and the 
general public on the accomplishments of each proposal that has 
been selected for funding under the Program.
    Paragraph (4) requires the Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Interior and interested stakeholders, to 
use a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability 
process to assess the positive or negative ecological, social, 
and economic effects of projects implementing a selected 
proposal for not less than 15 years after project 
implementation commences. This provision recognizes the 
experimental nature of landscape-scale ecological restoration 
and the importance of collecting, analyzing, and sharing that 
information to advance the underlying goals of the Program. The 
Committee's amendment recognizes that while detailed monitoring 
of every single project implementing a proposal may be useful, 
it may not be realistic in all circumstances and therefore is 
not required.
    Subsection (h) requires the Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Interior, to submit a report every five 
years to the relevant congressional committees assessing 
whether, and to what extent, the Program is fulfilling the 
purposes of the Act.
    Subsection (i) authorizes appropriations to the Secretaries 
of the Interior and Agriculture to carry out the bill. The 
appropriations authorized to be appropriated to the Fund by 
section 4(f)(6) are available for carrying out only a limited 
portion of the Program on National Forest System land. This 
subsection authorizes appropriations to fund other aspects of 
the bill, including, for example, ecological restoration 
treatments on land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs, the advisory panel, 
community support, and Forest Service regional funding 
requirements.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

S. 2593--Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2008

    Summary: S. 2593 would establish a collaborative program 
between the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to 
select and fund ecological restoration projects on certain 
forest lands. To fund the program, the bill would create and 
authorize appropriations for the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration Fund.
    Based on information from the Forest Service and assuming 
appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 2593 would cost $188 million over the 2009-2013 
period and approximately $250 million in the years after 2013. 
Enacting this bill would not affect direct spending or 
revenues.
    S. 2593 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 2593 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                2009    2010    2011    2012    2013   2009-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level..........................................      40      40      40      40      40       200
Estimated Outlays............................................      30      38      40      40      40       188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
2593 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2009 and 
that the authorized amounts will be appropriated over the 2009-
2013 period.
    S. 2593 would establish a collaborative program between the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to select and fund 
ecological restoration projects on certain forest lands. The 
projects conducted under the program could involve state, 
local, and tribal participants, and projects would, among other 
activities, explore ways to reduce the costs of managing 
wildland fires by re-establishing natural fire regimes. (A 
natural fire regime describes the pattern that fires follow in 
particular ecosystems.)
    S. 2593 would establish a fund in the Treasury to pay for 
up to half of the costs of the projects and would authorize the 
appropriation of $40 million a year to the fund over the 2009-
2019 period. The Secretaries currently spend several million 
dollars per year managing wildland fires and on programs to 
promote healthy forest lands. Under the bill project funding 
also could come from local governments or private entities.
    Based on information from the Forest Service and assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 2593 would cost $188 million over the 2009-2013 
period and approximately $250 million in the years after 2013.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2593 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Tyler Kruzich; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; 
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 2593.
    The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of 
imposing Government-established standards or significant 
economic responsibilities on private individuals and 
businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of S. 2593.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    S. 2593 does not contain any congressionally directed 
spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The views of the Administration were included in testimony 
received by the Committee at a hearing on S. 2593 on April 1, 
2008, which is printed below.

    Statement of Gail Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service, Department of 
                              Agriculture

    Thank you for the opportunity today to provide the Forest 
Service's view on S. 2593, a bill that would provide for the 
establishment of a program to carry out collaborative 
ecological restoration treatments on priority forest 
landscapes. We support the intent of the bill to work on a 
landscape scale, to integrate the best available science, and 
to implement proposals through a collaborative process. As 
reflected by the inclusion of an ecosystems demonstration 
legislative proposal within the President's FY 2009 Budget and 
much of our current work, we share this goal. The 
Administration's ecosystem demonstration proposal would expand 
our ability to bring new partners together with the Forest 
Service on landscape-scale projects that restore forests 
through market-oriented approaches to stewardship of national 
forests.
    Both the President's proposal and S. 2593 reflect a 
collaborative approach that builds commitment to partnership 
and ownership of the results. Each would help different groups 
find their common interests and leverages resources to get work 
done. Although the Forest Service has been carrying out 
restoration work across landscapes under current authorities, 
S. 2593 would enhance our current efforts by helping prioritize 
landscape-level restoration work. In my testimony, I will give 
some background on our current efforts in landscape-level work 
and make some general comments on the bill.
    We believe there is a need for action to restore the health 
of many of the Nation's forests and rangelands. On the one 
hand, some of our forests and grasslands have adapted to 
natural disturbance regimes. On the other hand, many areas 
across the Nation are experiencing extended droughts, reduced 
snow packs, damaging storm events, and other environmental 
stressors. The presence of large amounts of hazardous forest 
and rangeland fuels poses a risk of catastrophic wildfire that 
threatens other public and private land and natural resources 
and communities. Millions of acres of forest and rangeland 
ecosystems are under attack from native insects, such as bark 
beetles as well as non-native invasive species. For example 
between 2000-2004, trees were killed on approximately 27.1 
million acres in the Western States from a combination of 
factors. These diverse threats affect aquatic and terrestrial 
ecosystems in virtually every region of the country.


                            current efforts


    We believe that hazardous fuels treatment and other forest 
management approaches, such as forest thinning projects can 
help mitigate these risks, restore healthy forest conditions, 
and increase the ability of our Nation's forests and grasslands 
to adapt to ecological shifts associated with climate change. 
The Forest Service has taken several actions to accomplish 
these objectives, for example:
    Forest Restoration Framework and Policy. The Forest Service 
has completed a strategic, science-based framework for 
restoring and maintaining forest and grassland ecological 
conditions titled the ``Ecosystem Restoration Framework.'' The 
framework looks at the development of an integrated agency-wide 
forest restoration policy to promote ecosystem restoration and 
efforts to integrate this work across all functional areas of 
the agency. The framework also considers integration of 
ecosystem restoration into our national strategic, forest land 
and resource management plans, and project plans; and use of 
incentives to increase accomplishment of restoration 
objectives.
    The framework will address policy factors such as 
requirements to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate 
ecological restoration activities in consideration of current 
and future desired conditions and the potential for future 
changes in environmental conditions, including climate change. 
Our policy will provide consistent guidance to all of our field 
units; communicate our intention to increase emphasis on 
operating at a landscape scale, and our expectation to 
accelerate collaborative restoration work. The policy is under 
development and is expected to be released within the near 
future.
    Stewardship Contracting as a Tool to Accomplish 
Restoration. The Forest Service has been actively using 
stewardship contracts, part of the Healthy Forests Initiative, 
to advance hazardous fuels reduction and other forest 
restoration treatments in priority areas. Last year, we 
completed an assessment of our progress on implementing 
stewardship contracting, and we are working to expand our use 
of stewardship contracting. We believe that stewardship 
contracting is an effective tool to implement the landscape 
restoration proposals under this bill, and we think that the 
authority to enter into the contracts should be made permanent. 
Several projects stand out as examples of this tool's 
capability.
     The White Mountain Stewardship Contract on the 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Springerville, Arizona is 
the largest stewardship contract in the nation. This contract 
has a 10-year term to treat 15,000 acres per year for a total 
of about 150,000 acres, and it is entering its fourth year. The 
project was designed and is being carried out through a 
collaboration of various state and local governments, 
representatives of local forest products industry, and special 
interest groups. The goals of this effort are to restore forest 
health, reduce the risk of fire to communities, reduce the cost 
of forest thinning, support local economies, and encourage new 
wood product industries and uses for the thinned wood fiber. 
Removal of saw timber is offsetting the cost of fuels 
treatments and improvements to forest health. In addition, the 
project will partially supply material to the Renegy Biomass 
Plant (25 megawatt) in Snowflake, AZ.
     In Alamogordo, New Mexico, the Lincoln National 
Forest and the Mescalero Apache Tribe signed the 16 Springs 
Stewardship Project under the authority of the Tribal Forest 
Protection Act (TFPA, Public Law 108-248). This is the first 
stewardship contract under the TFPA authority, which permits 
the Federal government to enter into contracts and agreements 
with American Indian Tribes for work on public lands bordering 
on or adjacent to tribal lands. The 6-year contract involves 
15,000 treatment acres (half with commercial timber harvest and 
service work, half with service work only). The service work 
primarily consists of thinning and fuel treatments. The project 
is designed to reduce the threat of wildfire and forest disease 
spread from public lands to Tribal land. The project will 
contribute to the central priority of restoration of fire-
adapted ecosystems by reducing intensities of wildfires, 
especially in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) as identified 
under the Otero County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 
sanctioned by the Otero County Working Group. Furthermore, the 
project will restore natural ecologic processes across a range 
of forest types, provide forest products to the local 
community, and enhance watershed conditions. The full 
implementation of this contract will reduce the threat of 
damaging wildfire to national forest system, private, and 
tribal lands.
     The Sustained Yield Restoration Stewardship 
Contract on the Fremont-Winema National Forest in Lakeview, 
Oregon is a contract with a 10-year term that we anticipate 
will treat about 3,000 acres per year for a total of about 
30,000 acres. This project will reduce the risk of catastrophic 
fire and restore watershed conditions. The goals of the project 
are to sustain and restore a healthy and resilient forest 
ecosystem that can accommodate human and natural disturbances, 
to sustain and restore the capacity to absorb, store, and 
distribute quality water, and to enhance opportunities for 
people to realize spiritual and recreational values on the 
forest. The forest thinning treatments will yield sawlogs and 
biomass. The biomass from this contract will provide a portion 
of the material necessary to produce electric energy in the 
planned $20-million Lakeview Biomass Plant. Once this plant is 
operational, it is expected to annually produce about 13 
megawatts of renewable energy. The project is an outgrowth of a 
20-year Memorandum of Understanding signed by The Collins 
Companies, Marubeni Sustainable Energy, Lake County Resources 
Initiative, Oregon Department of Forestry, Lake County, Town of 
Lakeview, City of Paisley, the BLM, and the Forest Service.
     The Front Range Stewardship Contract is located on 
the Pike, San Isabel, Arapaho, and Roosevelt National Forests 
in Colorado and is a contract with a 10-year term that should 
treat about 4,000 acres per year for a total of about 40,000 
acres. This contract will involve the harvest of saw timber, 
treatment of non-saw timber, biomass and slash and will create 
fuel modification zones, fuelbreaks and fireline construction. 
The project is designed to provide hazardous fuel reduction, 
forest restoration, watershed enhancements, and related 
services. The initiative is the outcome of the Front Range 
Roundtable, a diverse group of stakeholders that has worked 
together since 2003 to develop a long-term vision and roadmap 
for achieving comprehensive fire risk mitigation and forest 
health goals in the ten counties comprising Colorado's Front 
Range. Through intense ecological analyses, the Roundtable 
identified over 1.5 million acres along the Front Range in need 
of treatment to reduce the risks of wildfire to communities and 
restore forests to sound ecological health.
     The Francis Marion Biomass Removal Stewardship 
Project on the Francis Marion National Forest in Cordesville, 
South Carolina offered two multi-year contracts to treat 
approximately 2,000 acres per year for 5 years for a total of 
10,000 acres. The primary objectives are to reduce fire hazard 
and improve the forest health of dense stands of young loblolly 
pine that established following Hurricane Hugo of 1989. The 
contracts have stimulated a biomass chip market that 
supplements the energy needs of local users for power 
generation. The biomass chip value offsets the cost of pre-
commercial thinning and has realized a major savings for the 
Forest. These contracts have resulted in stand treatment costs 
dropping by about 50 percent. The project sprung from a 
collaboration of Santee Cooper Power and Electric Company, 
South Carolina Forestry Commission, the Native Plant Society 
and the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and several 
local fire departments from communities adjoining the Forest.
    Many of the successes in our use of stewardship contracting 
are a direct result of the development and implementation of 
projects through collaborative partnerships with groups of 
diverse interests.
    Open Space Strategy. In December of 2007, we announced the 
release of the ``Forest Service Open Space Strategy.'' Healthy 
ecosystems require maintenance as well as restoration. The loss 
of open space threatens the sustainability of the Nation's 
forests and grasslands. We lose approximately 6,000 acres of 
open space to development or land conversion each day across 
the United States. Land development is outpacing population 
growth, especially in rural areas where the trend is low 
density, dispersed development. The new Forest Service strategy 
provides a framework for working with others to conserve open 
space. It emphasizes collaborative approaches and partnerships 
to conserve ecologically and socially important forests, 
grasslands, ranches, and urban green spaces. These important 
lands provide vital ecosystem services and benefits for 
society, such as clean air, abundant water, connected fish and 
wildlife habitat, scenic beauty, outdoor recreation, and 
renewable resource products.
    Landscape Research. Forest Service Research and Development 
provides long-term research, scientific knowledge, and tools 
that can be used to manage, restore, and conserve forests and 
rangelands. Forest Service research-based information relevant 
to this bill includes social science on collaborative planning 
that can help managers plan and carry out projects. Also, we 
are responsible for the Nation's Forest Census, known as the 
Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Research information is 
essential for understanding effects and management options for 
multiple stressors on ecosystems, such as drought, invasive 
species, fire, and air pollution and loss of open space. Other 
relevant research under way addresses how biomass utilization 
can help reduce fire impacts by reducing fuel loads. 
Additionally, there is ongoing research on costs of fire 
suppression and various fuels treatment that will be available 
for managers' use.


 ecosystem services: a more inclusive path forward to obtaining forest 
                                benefits


    Our country and those elsewhere are becoming increasingly 
aware of the importance of healthy forest ecosystems as 
ecological life-support systems. As you know, healthy forests 
provide strong economies and jobs, but also yield other goods 
and services that are vital to human health and livelihood--
natural assets we call ecosystem services. Many of these goods 
and services are traditionally viewed as free benefits to 
society, or ``public goods''--wildlife habitat and diversity, 
watershed services, carbon storage, and scenic landscapes, for 
example. Recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with 
economic and social value can help promote conservation and 
more responsible decision-making.
    The President's FY 2009 Budget reflects a commitment to the 
expanded thinking about ecosystem services and recognition of 
other values that flow from healthy ecosystems. The Budget's 
proposal would bring new partners together with the Forest 
Service in a broad effort to advance stewardship on national 
forest lands in landscape-scale projects that address a full 
range of ecosystem services. Restoring ecosystem function 
through projects such as hazardous fuels reduction lets local 
interests invest in local projects to their own benefit with an 
assurance of the outcomes of that investment. Here are some of 
the highlights of this proposal:
     The Forest Service would have the authority to 
implement up to five Ecosystem Services Demonstration Projects 
with partners to restore, enhance, or protect ecosystem 
functions on National Forest System lands.
     Outcomes from these projects will demonstrate the 
value of clean water, carbon sequestration, and other critical 
services that forests provide.
     The ecosystem services provided by these projects 
will be identified and measured through applied research, 
providing valuable information to potential and emerging 
markets.
     These projects will benefit the Forest Service and 
a partner, defined as either a State, political subdivision of 
a State, Indian tribe, or non-profit organization.
     The projects will be expanded or accelerated using 
the funds or services provided by a partner. Partnering 
entities could carry out the project for the agency, provide 
funds for project implementation up to a total of $10 million 
for all projects, or provide a combination of funds and 
services.
    Each project will be consistent with applicable land and 
resource management plans and will comply with environmental 
laws and regulations.
    All ecosystem service benefits that accrue from these 
projects will remain public.


         s. 2593, the forest landscape restoration act of 2008


    As does the ecosystem services proposal, S. 2593 would 
provide an additional tool for restoration consistent with 
current efforts. Projects would be created collaboratively and 
be part of a system that is evaluated on a landscape scale. In 
particular, this could be helpful for developing comprehensive 
management options that address issues related to climate 
change. I would like to now turn to the bill language.
    Section 3. Definitions. We believe a definition of the term 
``restoration'' would be useful and should focus on restoration 
of healthy, sustainable, productive ecosystems for the future, 
as opposed to a return to a historic condition. We would like 
to work with the Committee on the definition.
    Section 4. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program. Section 4(a) would require the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to establish a 
program to select and fund ecological restoration treatments 
for priority forest landscapes. Section 4(b) sets out criteria 
that ecological restoration proposals under the program would 
be required to meet in order to be eligible for nomination. 
Requirements include a landscape restoration strategy that 
identifies and prioritizes treatments for a 10-year period 
across a landscape that is at least 50,000 acres, and is 
comprised of primarily forested National Forest System lands, 
but may also include other Federal, State, tribal, or private 
land. The restoration proposal would be required to be 
developed and implemented through a collaborative process. It 
must include an analysis that estimates the anticipated cost 
savings resulting from reduced wildfire management costs, and 
decreases the unit costs of implementing ecological restoration 
treatments over time. Additionally, the restoration proposal 
must include an estimate of the amount of new non-Federal 
investment that would be leveraged by Federal funding for 
restoration treatments, though non-Federal investments are not 
affirmatively required.
    We support the intent of the bill to work on a landscape 
scale, to integrate the best available science, and to 
implement proposals through a collaborative process. We already 
use criteria to support resource allocation in priority 
treatment areas regarding hazardous fuels. However, we suggest 
the Administration's ecosystem services proposal provides for a 
broader suite of actions beyond hazardous fuels alone, but are 
willing to work with the Committee on technical aspects of the 
eligibility criteria in the bill.
    Section 4(c) sets out a nomination process that would 
require submission of proposals to Regional Foresters for 
consideration. As part of the nomination process, Section 
4(c)(3)(B) would require the Regional Forester to obtain 
concurrence from the Secretary of the Interior if actions under 
the jurisdiction of Interior are proposed.
    Section 4(d) would establish the process for selecting the 
collaborative forest landscape restoration proposals, which 
would require consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
even for proposals that do not affect lands administered by the 
Interior Secretary. We would like to work with the Committee to 
modify this provision to require consultation only when lands 
administered by the Secretary of the Interior are part of the 
proposal.
    Section 4(f) would establish the Collaborative Forest 
Restoration Fund that could be used to pay up to 50 percent of 
the cost for carrying out proposals for ecological restoration 
treatments on National Forest System lands. The bill provides 
for authorization of up to 40 million dollars to the Fund for 
each fiscal year 2008 through 2018. No more than 10 proposals 
could be funded during any given year, nor could more than 2 
proposals be funded in any 1 region during a given year. Under 
section 4(f)(3) amounts appropriated from the general fund of 
the Treasury would be invested in interest bearing securities 
of the United States. The Administration objects to this 
provision. Amounts available for investment should be limited 
to funds collected from the public and not to funds 
appropriated from the General Fund which are not made subject 
to the appropriations process. We are also concerned that 
amounts appropriated to the Fund may result in a decrease of 
amounts appropriated for other high priority work and that 
there is no requirement for matching of non-Federal monies for 
projects that occur on non-Federal lands.
    Section 4(g) would establish program implementation and 
monitoring requirements. Section 4(g)(1) would require the 
creation of an implementation work plan that includes a 
description of the landscape restoration proposal, a business 
plan, and documentation of the non-Federal investment in the 
priority landscape. Section 4(g)(4) would require the 
Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Interior, 
to use a multi-party monitoring, evaluation, and accountability 
process to access the ecological, social, and economic effects 
of each forest landscape restoration project. We are concerned 
that, in practice, the implementation of the bill may be 
administratively burdensome. Also, it is not clear when 
environmental analysis would be required. However, we would be 
happy to work with the Committee on clarifying language and to 
make any necessary administrative changes to the bill.
    We support landscape level planning, projects implemented 
cooperatively, and monitoring of performance. We recommend 
replacing ``multi-party monitoring'' with ``science-based 
monitoring''. This bill would provide the opportunity to use a 
network of landscape level projects to conduct coordinated 
research on key questions, such as effects of treatments on 
soil, water, fire hazard, wildlife, insect and disease, and 
economics. A well designed system of science-based monitoring 
at the appropriate scale, combined with a well-designed set of 
landscape treatments, would provide valuable information about 
the effects and effectiveness of large landscape treatments 
over time across a number of different types of ecosystems. The 
results of the monitoring would improve information for 
managers providing a network of standard measures of 
effectiveness and effects of landscape restoration.


                               conclusion


    Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to working 
with Congress and various stakeholders to protect communities 
and people and to work collaboratively to restore healthy 
ecological conditions on lands of all ownerships that have 
undergone many changes. We believe that the actions we are 
currently taking will be enhanced by various provisions of S. 
2593, particularly if combined with the provisions of our 
ecosystem services demonstration project legislative proposal. 
Together they will provide the Forest Service some important 
tools we need to do work to restore our Nation's forests and 
grasslands to a condition so they can better resist disease, 
insects, and catastrophic fire.
    We recognize and appreciate the time spent by the Committee 
to develop a bipartisan constructive approach to carrying out 
collaborative ecosystem restoration of priority forest 
landscapes. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the 
Committee to explore the establishment of an ecosystem services 
authority and to make technical amendments to clarify and 
strengthen the bill. I will be glad to answer any questions you 
may have.
                                ------                                


 Statement of Henri Bisson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify for the Department 
of the Interior (DOI) on S. 2593, the Forest Landscape 
Restoration Act of 2008, which establishes a collaborative and 
science-based forest landscape restoration program that would 
prioritize and fund forest-based ecological restoration 
treatments. The DOI strongly supports landscape scale 
restoration efforts, and believes in the goals of landscape-
level approaches to land management. While we do have concerns 
with the legislation, which are discussed below, we appreciate 
the sponsors' intent in introducing S. 2593 to manage land 
health on a landscape scale.
    In our view, a true ecological approach to restoration 
begins with a collaborative evaluation of what is best for the 
health of the landscape and is followed by the engagement of 
the appropriate partners. This approach is more effective in 
achieving the mutual goal of improving landscape health which, 
in turn, improves resiliency to the risk of wildfires and 
invasive species and preserves key wildlife habitat. It 
aggregates the investments of the partners and increases the 
cost-effectiveness of those investments. We would like to take 
this opportunity to share our current efforts to improve the 
ecological health of lands through a landscape-scale 
collaborative approach.


                               background


    Collaborative landscape-scale treatments continue to be the 
focus and priority in carrying out land management objectives 
on DOI-administered lands. It is important for us to look at 
management from a landscape perspective beyond geopolitical 
boundaries and isolated ecosystems. Forests, woodlands and 
rangelands are a mosaic where the lands, resources and 
communities are all interconnected. From this perspective, we 
see the interdependence of resources and the need to develop 
interdisciplinary strategies for balanced multiple-use 
management across the entire landscape.
    Several current activities and proposed programs in the 
Administration's FY 2009 budget request already promote 
landscape-level approaches to restoring and maintaining land 
health that engage a number of Federal and non-Federal 
partners. Examples of key DOI programs include the Healthy 
Lands Initiative and the Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels 
Reduction Program.
    Healthy Lands Initiative--One challenge DOI faces is 
meeting land health goals that are required to integrate 
landscape-scale habitat restoration and resource management. 
Through the Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI), DOI is working 
collaboratively with our Federal and non-Federal partners to 
restore, enhance, and protect habitats through landscape-scale 
restoration initiatives and conservation planning, allowing us 
to continue to fulfill our multiple-use mandates. HLI considers 
the health of the land at a landscape scale instead of acre by 
acre.
    Initiated in Fiscal Year 2007, the Department's Healthy 
Lands Initiative focuses on implementing landscape-scale 
habitat restoration and conservation projects across both 
public and private lands. All of the projects implemented under 
this Initiative promote the maintenance or restoration of 
healthy native plant communities with the increased ability to 
survive or adapt to anticipated changes in the environment in 
the future. The Healthy Lands Initiative represents a concept 
for meeting emerging challenges in managing natural resources 
for continued multiple use with flexible landscape-level 
approaches. Land restoration efforts are targeted toward 
priority landscapes to achieve various resource objectives, 
including resource protection, rehabilitation, and biological 
diversity. A key component of this initiative is the 
partnership aspect of HLI and working closely with our 
neighbors to initiate and fund landscape-scale restoration work 
that allows for continued healthy, working landscapes. The BLM 
leverages appropriated funding with matching funds provided by 
other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, 
philanthropic organizations, advocacy groups, and industry 
partners.
    The 2009 Budget includes a total of $21.9 million within 
DOI to meet land health goals, a $14 million increase over the 
2008 enacted level. BLM has the largest level of involvement in 
this initiative. In FY 2009, the BLM is requesting a $10.0 
million increase over the FY 2008 enacted level of funding of 
$4.9 million, for a total of $14.9 million for HLI. An 
additional $8.2 million in BLM base funding also supports 
healthy lands. The BLM proposes to expand HLI to California as 
an addition to the six initial project areas located in New 
Mexico, Utah, Southcentral Idaho, Southwest Wyoming, Southeast 
Oregon-Southwest Idaho-Northern Nevada, and Western Colorado. 
The Colorado project area will be expanded to the northwestern 
part of the State in 2009.
    Our approach, working with our partners to maintain healthy 
landscapes, sustain wildlife and maintain continued access to 
the public lands for multiple uses supports a landscape-level 
approach to natural resource management and restoration.
    We would like to highlight a few of the many successes and 
planned efforts that illustrate our ability to conserve the 
diversity and productivity of the landscape through the 
opportunities we have in HLI.
     The Colorado Landscape Conservation Initiative 
encompasses 20.5 million acres of mixed ownership, including 
roughly 4 million acres managed by the BLM. This area provides 
quality habitat for diverse wildlife populations, including 
seven of the eight remaining populations of Gunnison sage-
grouse, as well as numerous special status species. The BLM, 
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest 
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado 
Division of Wildlife and private partners are working together 
to restore, enhance, and protect habitats through conservation 
planning efforts and partnerships. To enhance existing 
resources and restore conditions, BLM Colorado's planned 
actions include implementing habitat treatment projects, 
implementing effective weed management efforts, expanding the 
native seed program, pursuing conservation easements, and 
monitoring treatment effectiveness. This year BLM is spending 
close to $400,000 to treat 560 acres of wetlands, 12 miles of 
stream, 3,060 acres of shrub, grass, woodland, and 10 riparian 
projects. In the Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget request, 
the BLM is requesting almost $2 million to treat 1,380 acres of 
wetlands, 14 miles of stream, 3,110 acres of forest, shrub, 
grass, woodland, 1,380 acres of weeds, and 27 riparian projects
     In New Mexico, the BLM is working closely with 
private, state, and other Federal partners to restore desert 
grasslands that are being supplanted with invasive mesquite. 
Removing the mesquite from these landscapes reduces habitat 
fragmentation for important species such as the Lesser Prairie 
Chicken and Aplomado Falcon and improves the overall natural 
biodiversity of desert grasslands. The BLM treated 40,000 acres 
in Fiscal Year 2007, is planning to treat 48,730 acres in 
Fiscal Year 2008, and is requesting almost $3.5 million to 
treat 132,320 acres in Fiscal Year 2009. Additional non-BLM 
acreage is being treated using other contributed funds.
    BLM also engages in comprehensive land health treatments 
through other base activities. For instance:
     The BLM plans institutionalization of landscape 
level land health treatments that characterize HLI. In Montana, 
the BLM is addressing landscape-scale restoration on a 600,000 
acre watershed in the southwest part of the state. A recent 
forest health assessment on a 32,000 acre area, known as the 
south Tobacco Roots watershed, found that altered forest 
structure, density and species composition in the mid-elevation 
forests, of which both Forest Service and BLM are major land 
managers, is putting these forests at high risk to insect 
epidemic and catastrophic wildfire. The agencies have been 
working collaboratively with private landowners, conservation 
groups, and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 
Conservation to begin restoration across the watershed. The DOI 
planned actions are 4,000 acres of forest restoration sales 
followed by prescribed burn and 1,600 acres of juniper 
treatment by prescribed burn. These treatments across the 
entire watershed will restore the health, resiliency and 
productivity of the entire watershed and continue to provide 
high quality habitat, as well as a high quality place to live 
and work for the people who live here.
    National Fire Plan/Healthy Forests Initiative/Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act--Two major challenges facing DOI are 
addressing ecosystem health and the accumulation of flammable 
fuels on Federal lands, a major cause of fire risk. Multiple 
factors contribute to wildfire, which include weather, fuel 
type, terrain, location with respect to the wildland urban 
interface, and other highly valued landscapes, and managerial 
decisions made before and during fire incidents. As we have 
noted in past testimony before this Committee, we are seeing 
changing temperature and prolonged drought across many portions 
of the West and Southwest and an expansion of the wildland 
urban interface and an increase in the number of people living 
there. Fifty-seven million people now reside within 25 miles of 
BLM lands, and BLM lands host approximately 58 million 
recreation visits annually.
    As current trends indicate wildfire seasons may be lasting 
longer and the burned areas are becoming large. Continued 
accumulation of wood fiber, and substantial increases in highly 
flammable invasive species, are converging to increase the risk 
of catastrophic loss from wildland fires. The DOI, along with 
the Forest Service and other partners, is addressing cost 
containment measures to reduce suppression costs. We are also 
working hard in developing a cohesive approach among Federal 
partners, local governments, private organizations and citizens 
to reduce hazardous fuels and restore and maintain forest, 
woodland and rangeland health. This is being achieved through 
various initiatives such as the National Fire Plan (NFP), the 
Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), and implementation of the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). To date, we 
have made considerable progress.
    Since 2001, the DOI has worked aggressively to reduce the 
amount of hazardous fuels on Federal lands and restore the 
health of our public forests, woodlands and rangelands, 
utilizing the authorities provided under the HFI and the HFRA. 
Of the 258 million acres administered by the BLM, 69 million 
acres are forests and woodlands located in the 11 western 
states. HFI and HFRA have provided the BLM with tools to ensure 
sound management practices and to implement hazardous fuels 
reduction projects and stewardship contracting.
    The BLM's hazardous fuels reduction and forests, woodlands 
and rangelands rehabilitation activities have also been guided 
by the National Fire Plan (NFP). The goals are to reduce fuels 
(combustible forest materials) in forests, woodlands, and 
rangelands at risk, rehabilitate and restore fire-damaged 
ecosystems, and work with local residents to reduce fire risk 
and improve fire protection. The NFP is being successfully 
implemented under the leadership of an interagency and 
intergovernmental group of Federal, state and local agencies 
working cooperatively to reduce wildfire risk and restore fire-
adapted ecosystems. Investments made to restore land health 
today can have a profound impact on the resiliency of the 
treated acres to catastrophic and expensive wildfires in the 
future. Many treatments, such as thinning in forests and 
woodlands have an additional benefit of improving watershed 
conditions, wildlife habitat, and species diversity. Overall, 
the DOI has applied nearly 8 million acres of hazardous fuels 
reduction treatments to forests, woodlands, and rangelands on 
the public lands since 2001, using the tools of prescribed 
burns, and chemical and mechanical fuels treatments, as well as 
restored 1.4 million acres through other landscape restoration 
activities.
    The 2009 President's budget proposes $850 million to 
support fire preparedness, suppression, fuels reduction, and 
burned area rehabilitation needs for the DOI. This is a $42 
million increase over the 2008 enacted level (excluding 
supplementals). The DOI continues to support the Healthy 
Forests Initiative. The budget proposes $202 million for 
hazardous fuels reduction program. These funds will support 
more high priority fuels treatment projects. Putting forth the 
effort to cooperatively reduce wildfire risk and restore fire-
adapted ecosystems now will lead to reduced fire impacts and 
costs in the future.


                                s. 2593


    The legislation calls for the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to establish a 
collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to select 
and fund ecological restoration treatments for priority forest 
landscapes.
    Section 4(b) discusses eligibility criteria for 
collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal 
nominations. One criterion is for the proposals to be comprised 
primarily of forested National Forest System land, but may also 
include other Federal, State, tribal, or private land.
    Section 4(c) describes the nomination process, requiring 
the Regional Forester to nominate collaborative forest 
landscape restoration proposals for selection by the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    Section 4(f) establishes a fund for the cost of carrying 
out ecological restoration treatments on National Forest System 
land, allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to use the fund to 
treat National Forest System lands for each collaborative 
forest landscape restoration proposal selected. It is unclear 
if the fund can be used to treat lands outside of the National 
Forest System that comprise a portion of a selected restoration 
project. The section also authorizes to be appropriated $40 
million for each of fiscal years 2008-2018, to remain available 
until expended, and it allows interest to be credited to the 
fund.
    Section 4(g) states the Secretary of Agriculture shall, in 
collaboration with the Secretary of the Interior and interested 
stakeholders, use a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and 
accountability process for not less than 15 years after project 
implementation commences. The bill also requires the Secretary 
of the Interior, as a collaborator with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, to report on accomplishments for collaborative 
forest landscape projects carried out under the authorities of 
this legislation.
    As previously stated, we support landscape level approaches 
to land health. The legislation would provide the Secretary 
with an additional tool for restoration treatments for priority 
forest landscapes on public lands. As noted above, however, the 
Department, through the Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels Reduction 
Program and the Healthy Lands Initiative, and the U.S. Forest 
Service already engage in activities proposed to be included in 
the bill. Moreover, the FY 2009 budget proposes Ecosystems 
Services Demonstration Projects in the Forest Service, 
described in greater detail in the Forest Service's testimony 
today.
    Of particular concern to the Administration is the creation 
of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. The 
bill requires the Fund provide up to fifty percent of the cost 
of carrying out ecological restoration. It is not clear what 
mechanism would require Federal agencies to seek partner 
funding from non-Federal sources. Leveraging Federal funds with 
non-Federal funds is a vital element to successfully 
undertaking landscape level restoration projects as it 
facilitates collaboration and commitment by our non-Federal 
partners. Under section 4(f)(3) amounts appropriated from the 
general fund of the Treasury would be invested in interest 
bearing securities of the United States. The Administration 
objects to this provision. Amounts available for investment 
should be limited to funds collected from the public and not to 
funds appropriated from the General Fund which are not made 
subject to the appropriations process. We also have concerns 
that implementation of the bill may be administratively 
burdensome.
    Finally, we are committed to working with the Committee and 
the legislation's sponsor to ensure that any legislation 
effectively considers the health and restoration of forests, 
woodlands, and rangelands.


                               conclusion


    Landscape-scale restoration continues to be a high priority 
for DOI. In collaboration with our partners, we have made 
considerable strides in restoring thousands of acres of Federal 
lands along with state and privately-owned lands under the 
jurisdiction of our partners. The DOI will continue to work 
towards achieving priorities in an effort to make significant 
improvements in the health and productivity of the public 
forests, woodlands and rangelands at the landscape level. We 
look forward to working with the Committee on S. 2593. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify, I will be happy to answer 
any questions.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 2593 as ordered 
reported.

                                  
