[Senate Hearing 110-58]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-58
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
====================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE USDA FOREST SERVICE BUDGET
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-971 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
Scott Miller, Counsel
Frank Gladics, Republican Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 3
Kimball, Abigail, Chief, USDA Forest Service..................... 10
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 5
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 4
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 33
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Why don't we go ahead? I understand Senator
Domenici has been held up in traffic but will be here very
shortly and since we have several other members here, why don't
we go ahead? I'll make a short statement and then we'll turn to
our witnesses for comments, unless Senator Domenici arrives in
time, or I'll turn to Larry if he has any kind of opening
statement, of course.
Today, the committee will consider the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget request for the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service. Witnesses are Under Secretary Mark Rey and the
Forest Service Chief, Gail Kimball.
I'd like to particularly welcome Chief Kimball. This is her
first hearing before the committee since she was appointed as
the 16th Chief of the Forest Service on February 5. So we are
very glad to have you here and we appreciate you adjusting your
schedule.
It is Under Secretary Rey's sixth year of presenting the
administration's budget. I think we are getting into more and
more difficult problems as the years go by, at least from my
perspective. Let me explain that a little bit.
The administration is proposing about a 9 percent, or $450
million, cut from the Forest Service budget that was recently
passed as part of the continuing resolution. That is the latest
cut. When adjusted for inflation, the President's fiscal year
2008 request amounts to a 23 percent or $1.4 billion cut from
the Forest Service budget that the administration inherited in
2001.
During the same period, the Forest Service's costs for
managing wildland fires has more than doubled, to $1.5 billion.
This committee held a hearing a month ago on controlling the
escalating cost of wildfire management, and the implications of
those rising costs are painfully apparent in this budget.
This budget would return the non-fire discretionary budget
to 1996 levels, meaning large cuts in virtually every other
program in the Forest Service. If the wildland fire management
portion of the budget continues to grow at the rate that it has
grown in the previous 10 years, a rough calculation indicates
that this obligation to fight fires will eat up the Forest
Service's entire discretionary budget by 2030. In other words,
if we do not make dramatic changes in how wildland fire
management is budgeted, it will not be long before the Forest
Service is simply the Fire Service.
It's very difficult to put together a reasonable budget
when you don't have a reasonable amount of money to work with.
Unfortunately, this budget does make the situation worse in my
view. Despite the resounding opposition to similar proposals in
last year's budget, the administration is again proposing to
sell off national forests to fund a phase-out of the County
Payments Program and to fully fund the Timber and related
programs in the Pacific Northwest by cutting funds from other
critical programs.
Not surprisingly, these proposals have met with the same
opposition again this year that they did last year. I do fear,
however, that they will once again be a distraction from the
many other important problems with the budget.
Let me now turn to Senator Craig for any opening comment he
has and I'll defer to Senator Domenici for his comments when he
arrives. But why don't you go ahead, Senator Craig? Then we'll
hear from the witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let
me, too, welcome to the committee Mark Rey and especially Gail
Kimball. Just a few moments ago, I said hello to her and
offered her congratulations and condolences. And now you know
why, Chief Kimball, I have offered you condolences. You've
heard it from our ranking member and my comments certainly
reflect his concerns as it relates to the overall Forest
Service budget and what it doesn't have in it versus what it
does.
Of course, I think all of us are frustrated, especially
those who come from States where you are a very large landowner
and we not only expect certain levels of performance out of the
Forest Service; we expect certain levels of maintenance as it
relates to the human activity on the land, trails--a
combination of things. Also, I look at it and see that there is
an $80 million reduction in funding for the general
preparedness coming out of one of the worst fire seasons on
record. We are dry in the west again in many areas. The
moisture is spotted at best. It's hard yet to predict what the
coming season will be like. It is reasonable to predict that it
probably would be similar to last year. Of course, firefighting
remains not only a roar in the trees of the summertime, as it
burns, but a great sucking sound out of our budgets here. There
is an unwillingness of Congress to recognize what has happened
to the Forest Service over the last decade, and that is the
grand old cash cow of the Forest Service we took away, the
Timber Sale Program that historically funded the U.S. Forest
Service. I am frustrated by that. I said when it happened that
I didn't think Congress would have the willingness to replace
the moneys and we haven't. As a result of that, we are creating
an orphan child of the U.S. Forest Service as it relates to its
ability to do what we think it ought to be doing on the land.
Having said that, this committee, this chairman and I are
wrestling now with another orphan child and that is called the
Secure Rural Schools Authorization. School districts and
counties became dependent early on in the century for a certain
percentage of the receipt of those timber sales. Then the
Craig-Wyden bill offset that loss for a time and here we are
once again, right in the middle of the political battle over
that, in an effort to try to find money for some reasonable
level of funding. The chairman has well said that what the
administration has offered; I have in blunt terms said ``It
don't hunt.'' I didn't call it quite a dog but at least I said,
``It don't hunt'': in relation to what I think our country
expects of its public land resource, and how we generally
manage it or exchange it or we shape it, and also in relation
to the needs of the moment versus the long term environmental
values.
Those are all frustrations in that budget. Senator Domenici
has just arrived. Our ranking member, let me close my comments,
but I am growing increasingly frustrated that we, here in
Congress, are starving--as is this administration--for an
appropriate budget for the U.S. Forest Service. The impacts on
my State grow in time as the resource becomes less healthy.
That has to be a concern to my State and I think any forested
State in the Nation. Thank you.
The Chairman. Before we hear from the witnesses, let me
call on Senator Domenici for any opening statement that he
would have. I made a short statement, and Senator Craig as
well, but if you have any statement, we'd like to hear it.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very
brief. Thank you for scheduling the hearing. I'd like to
welcome Under Secretary of Natural Resources and the
Environment, Mark Rey, and a new Chief of the Forest Service,
Gail Kimbell. This is your first hearing, Gail, before this
committee as Chief of the Forest Service and we appreciate your
willingness to lead the Forest Service during this time. I am
very hopeful that you will fully implement your predecessor's
plan to reduce the costs of the Washington office and the
regional offices by 25 percent so that funding can be shifted
to the forests and districts where it is so desperately needed.
I do want to mention three issues that this project brings
before us with some degree of concern. First, I'm increasingly
concerned by the administration's decision to fund a bias
called Arrow Preservation Trust, Senator Bingaman, with only
$850,000. Perhaps you already made that point?
The Chairman. I did not make that point, but go ahead.
Senator Domenici. This is inevitably penny-wise and pound-
foolish. This level is unacceptable in my view. Congress and
the administration passed the Caldara Preservation Trust Act
and I think the members on my side both remember that. That was
an enormous investment, $100 million, to purchase it and put it
in trust. It makes no sense to me that we would risk the
success of this program because we are unwilling to provide $4
or $5 million to provide several years to maintain this annual
operation of Caldara. I don't know why it's done this way, but
I tend to think that nobody cares that that's what happens. I
understand that in the long run, the trust will need to become
financially self-sufficient, but we are going to have to give
them some time to accomplish that. It's my view that the
administration is going to have to find ways to increase their
budget when they buy Caldara until the trust gets up and
running.
Second, I note the proposal adds a line item for
firefighters' salaries--$219.7 million, and reduces the
preparedness by an additional $90 million. I also note that
your budget justification lacked any discussion on these two
line items. I find this troubling and will have a number of
questions about the fire preparedness.
I notice in the survey of Federal firefighters, that many
are struggling and strongly considering getting out of the
firefighting because they fear the liability they might face if
investigated by the Office of Inspector General. Did you raise
that issue, Senator Craig?
Senator Craig. No, I did not.
Senator Domenici. I didn't know. But I think you know
that's a very big issue, and it's grown, and I hope this budget
will maintain the 98 percent initial attack fire suppression
success that you produced in the past. Although quite frankly,
I don't see how you can do this with these things at the
proposed levels.
Last, the 2008 budget proposal continues to include a
proposal that failed to find much support on the Hill last
year. I'm speaking about your proposal to sell land to pay for
the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self Determination
Act. Your last proposal on funding of the Secure Rural Schools
and Communities Self Determination Act will share half the
revenue that is generated to propose conservation lands in
States where these revenues are generated. I'm still skeptical
that you will find sufficient support for this program when 75
percent of these payments go to Oregon, Washington and
California.
Chairman Bingaman, I'll stop here and thank you for this
hearing and I'm glad you called the hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Domenici.
I want to welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey and Chief Gail Kimbell--
it is good to have you here for this annual hearing. And,
congratulations on your new post Chief Kimbell.
Healthy forests are important to Colorado because they neighbor our
communities, protect our watersheds, and provide many of Colorado's
recreational opportunities. I am not convinced that the Forest Service
is going to be able to maintain, let alone improve, our forests with a
budget that is a 1.5% decrease from last year and a 7% decrease from
2001. I am disturbed that Colorado's region two is looking at a
proposed 12.5% decrease this year.
In 2006, Colorado's eleven National Forests and two National
Grasslands continued to grapple with the effects of drought and insect
infestations. Thankfully, Colorado escaped the fire season with just
one fire over 10,000 acres and a total of 41,000 acres burned. However,
bark beetles continue to take advantage of dry conditions to run
rampant, killing trees and further elevating the fire danger for this
coming season. It is estimated that in 2006 around 5 million lodgepole
pines on 645,000 acres were killed by mountain pine beetles. The
widespread extent of this drought and infestation has alarmed many
communities in Colorado, and I am alarmed too.
I am alarmed because there is a tremendous amount of hazardous fuel
work to be done in Colorado. The Forest Service reports that 113
projects covering 280,000 acres of hazardous fuels treatments in
Colorado have been approved through NEPA and are available for
implementation pending funding. In fact, 65% of these treatments are
located in the wildland-urban interface, and another 235,000 acres are
being analyzed for approval.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service reports that it implemented just
73,662 acres of treatments in Fiscal Year 2006 due to funding
limitations. I don't want to make the mistake of assessing progress
based solely on acres treated, but it is clear to me that Colorado's
hazardous fuel conditions are deteriorating faster than current funding
is able to address.
A second important issue for Colorado was identified by former
Chief Dale Bosworth. He named unmanaged recreation as one of the four
threats facing our National Forests, but this budget cuts funding for
recreation management by 9% (a 12% cut in region two). In Colorado, we
have environmentalists working with off road vehicle groups on one of
the few issues they agree upon-the need for better recreation
management and funding, and I support that goal.
I look forward to hearing more about these, and other, provisions
in the budget in your testimony. Again, thank you for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. Why don't we go
ahead with Secretary Rey and then Chief Kimball, and hear their
testimony, and then we'll have some questions. Secretary Rey,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget for the Forest Service and I am pleased to
join Gail Kimball here, the newly appointed Chief of the Forest
Service, at her debut hearing before the committee today. Gail
has served at all levels of the agency as a career civil
servant, in a 30-plus year career in the Forest Service,
including in many of the States that you represent.
I'll discuss three issues that relate to the 2008 budget.
First I'll talk about changes to the wildland fire account and
associated issues. Second, I'll talk about the re-authorization
of secure rural schools legislation and then third, I'll speak
very briefly about funding for the Pacific Northwest Forest
Plan.
The 2008 budget proposes a total of $1.9 billion for
activities associated with wildland fire management, including
a new appropriation for wildland firefighters and other cost-
saving measures. The events of the 2006 fire season, as we
described vividly in the January 30 hearing before this
committee, make a compelling case for the strategic changes
that we're proposing in the 2008 budget. Congress has
repeatedly expressed concerns as recently as the January 30
hearing about rising fire suppression costs. Large fire costs
are a persistent challenge for the agency and threaten to
compromise the achievement levels of other critical mission
areas.
In response, a number of key actions are underway in fiscal
year 2007 and the 2008 budget request makes additional
significant proposals. Our funding request for both the
preparedness and the suppression accounts are tied to these
reforms to help better control firefighting costs as a
percentage of the overall budget.
Among the reforms that are being made in 2007 and in 2008
is that the 2008 budget reflects refinement of the concept of
appropriate management response toward a risk- informed fire
suppression approach. This approach provides risk-informed fire
protection by introducing the concept of managing wildland fire
in relationship to the risk that a specific incident proposed.
We are also implementing in 2007 that the Forest Service
will designate an individual with access to a support team to
provide oversight on fires of national significance and
assistance to local units. He or she will collaborate with the
Department of the Interior on Department of the Interior lands
as an express measure to affect cost controls on large
incidents, which comprise the largest portion of our
suppression account costs.
Third, national resources, such as smoke jumpers, hot shot
crews and helicopters, will be moved to areas and incidents
based on predictive services and on planning levels as national
shared resources. That should reduce the number of assets that
are deployed initially, by deploying them more effectively
across the board.
Fourth, aviation resources will be managed more effectively
to reduce their high cost. A full time national helicopter
coordinator will be selected to provide oversight for the
assignment and positioning of helicopters. Helicopter
management will be centralized as a national resource.
We will shift to more exclusive use versus call-when-needed
contracts for helicopters to increase the aircraft hours
available at a lower unit cost.
Finally, we will be making efforts to maintain our initial
success attack while reducing the dependence on severity
funding. The Forest Service will acquire lower thresholds for
the approval of severity funding to be elevated for approval by
the Chief. National shared resources will be pre-positioned,
whenever possible, in geographic areas where the fire risk is
greatest during the fire season.
Now let me talk about the Secure School and Community Self
Determination Act, which we will talk about at greater length
at tomorrow's hearing. That legislation was enacted to provide
transitional assistance to rural communities affected by the
decline in revenue from timber harvests on Federal lands. The
last payment authorized by the Act was for fiscal year 2006 and
was made in December 2006. The administration continues to be
on record in support of a 1-year extension of the act with
agreed-upon offsets as an interim step.
In addition, we are submitting the National Forest Land
Conveyance for Rural Communities Act to authorize a 4-year
extension of funding formally provided by the 2000 legislation.
The legislation would also provide conservation funding for
national forests and grasslands. Sale of identified national
forest system lands would provide funding to replace that which
the 2000 legislation provided.
Our proposal would authorize the Secretary to sell
sufficient national forest land to fund an $800 million
account. Under the legislation, 50 percent of those receipts
would be used as a funding source for the school payments and
the other 50 percent would be used as a funding source from the
States within which the land was sold, to be used for land
acquisition and conservation purposes. Given the difference
between the value of the lands we're selling and the lands we
would acquire, we anticipate that we acquire twice as many
acres under this proposal as we would sell, thereby
increasing--not decreasing--the net Federal estate, and doing
so in a fashion faster than we can do it today under standard
land exchange practices.
So if the concern over our proposal last year is that it
would result in a reduction of Federal acres, we have listened
and honestly met that concern by changing the proposal this
year into a proposal that could fund land acquisition. This
could result in increasing net Federal acres over what we start
with and funding secure rural schools as part of the bargain.
So I urge you, as we talk about this today and again tomorrow,
to keep that change in mind.
Last, our 2008 budget proposal proposes full funding for
the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. As many of you know, that
plan was developed by our predecessors in the Clinton
Administration as a compromise, a compromise which reduced
timber harvest levels in western Washington, western Oregon and
northern California, from about 6 billion feet per year to
about 1 billion feet per year. The provision of that 1 billion
feet of timber was a commitment expressly made by our
predecessors but never realized. As a consequence of the
complexity of the plan, litigation was subsequently attendant
to it. As a consequence of our efforts over the past 4 years,
we have simplified the plan, overcome many of the legislation
barriers to providing that raw material and are now proposing
to redeem the commitment made by our predecessors to fully fund
the implementation of that plan and to see those reduced timber
harvest levels realized. The concomitant benefit of that in
Oregon, Washington and northern California is that it will
reduce the need for funding from other sources to support rural
schools. So it has a double benefit, much like our proposal to
fund rural schools has a double benefit.
With that, I will turn the microphone over to Chief
Kimball.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and the Environment, Department of Agriculture
overview
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2008 Budget for the
Forest Service during today's hearing. I am pleased to join Gail
Kimbell, newly appointed Chief of the Forest Service, at this hearing
today.
I will discuss two issues that relate to the 2008 Budget. First, I
will address changes in the Wildland Fire account and associated
issues. I will next address the need to provide further transitional
assistance to rural counties through the proposed National Forest Land
Adjustment for Rural Communities Act.
wildland fire
The 2008 Budget proposes a total of $1.9 billion for activities
associated with Wildland Fire Management, including a new appropriation
for Wildland Fire Fighters. The events of the 2006 fire season make a
compelling case for these strategic changes.
On the heels of Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 fire season flowed
seamlessly into that of 2006--without the respite normally provided by
winter precipitation. From November through April, extreme low
humidity, persistent drought conditions, and winds contributed to the
ignition of fires through Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri, and New
Mexico. By late July, the wildland fire fighting community had entered
Preparedness Level 5--the highest level of fire activity, during which
several geographic areas are experiencing simultaneous major incidents.
During 2006 the Forest Service was at Preparedness Level 5 from late
July through late September, without intermission. Although the 2006
fire season had one of the highest number of fire starts in a single
day (548), an extraordinary number of lightning-caused fires (over
16,000), and a record number of simultaneous large fires (affecting
nearly every region in the country); it also resulted in significantly
fewer dwellings and other structures destroyed--750 homes lost in 2006
as compared to more than 4,500 lost in 2003.
Despite many positive accomplishments, fire suppression
expenditures topped $1.5 billion in 2006. Moreover, the agency has
spent over $1 billion on fire suppression in 4 of the last 7 years. The
increasing frequency of ``billion dollar'' fire-fighting years is
driving up the 10 year average suppression cost figure, which is used
to determine suppression funding levels. Congress has repeatedly
expressed concerns about rising fire suppression costs. Large fire
costs are a persistent challenge for the agency and threaten to
compromise the achievement levels of other critical mission areas. In
response, a number of key actions are underway in fiscal year 2007, and
the 2008 Budget request makes additional significant proposals.
The most significant actions underway in 2007 include:
1. From Appropriate Management Response to Risk-Informed
Response.--The Appropriate Management Response (AMR) was articulated in
the 2001 update of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.
Further, the 2008 Budget reflects refinement of the concept of AMR
toward a risk-informed fire suppression approach. This approach
provides risk-informed fire protection by introducing the concept of
managing wildland fire in relationship to the risk that the incident
poses. If a wildland fire has potential benefits to natural resources
and poses a relatively low risk to impact other valued assets, the fire
would receive a lower intensity suppression effort. Conversely, if a
fire incident is determined to pose high risk to property or community,
high suppression efforts would be applied. The approach utilizes risk
management and tools such as probability analysis and actuarial data to
inform rigorous and systematic ways to reach decisions that allocate
resources on the basis of risk posed by the wildfire and the strategy
used by managers to address it. The Forest Service has developed a
draft guidebook that presents a coherent strategy to implement this
approach. DOI is reviewing this guidebook and will work with Forest
Service on interagency implementation.
2. Forest Service Chief's Principal Representative.--The Forest
Service Chief will designate an individual with access to a support
team to provide oversight on fires of national significance and
assistance to local units and will collaborate with the DOI on DOI
lands. The individual will be highly experienced in wildfire
management, and the team will have knowledge and capability with
decision-support tools. These changes will immediately provide for
experienced decision-making that should reduce costs on large fires.
3. National Shared Resources.--National resources such as smoke
jumpers, hot shot crews and helicopters will be moved to areas and
incidents based on Predictive Services and on Planning Levels. This
will create a more centralized and flexible management of these
response resources. Funding and decision-making from the national level
will ensure consistency across regions, flexibility in the assignment
of resources and eliminate geographic concentration of resources that
impose costs in both time and money.
4. Aviation Resource Cost Management.--Aviation resources will be
managed more effectively to reduce their high cost. A full-time
National helicopter coordinator will be selected to provide oversight
for the assignment and positioning of helicopters. Helicopter
management will be centralized as a national resource. The Forest
Service will attempt to shift more to ``exclusive use'' versus ``call
when needed'' contracts for helicopters. This will increase
preparedness costs initially, but is expected to greatly reduce large
fire suppression cost with potential saving of tens of millions of
dollars per year. We will pursue longer term aviation contracts for all
aviation resources with increased performance-based contracting. DOI
also is pursuing strategies to reduce its costs.
5. Initial Attack and Severity Funding.--Efforts will be made to
maintain our initial attack success while reducing the dependence on
severity funding. The Forest Service will require lower thresholds for
the approval of severity funding to be elevated for approval by the
Chief National Shared Resources will be pre-positioned whenever
possible in geographic areas where fire risk is the greatest during the
fire season. The Forest Service and DOI agencies will continue to
submit a coordinated severity request so as to not duplicate effort or
expense.
In addition to the changes for 2007, the 2008 Budget proposes a
separate appropriation for Wildland Firefighters. The Budget proposal
moves funding for firefighters out of the Preparedness budget within
Wildland Fire, and into a separate appropriation. There is no net
program change as a result of this move. Importantly, this adds a
higher degree of visibility and transparency to fire suppression
activities and provides $220 million for hiring and training the 10,000
firefighters necessary to ensure a successful fire season.
The Wildland Fire account's Suppression line is funded at $911
million, reflecting the updated 10-year average for total suppression
costs as adjusted for inflation and includes indirect costs not charged
to fire suppression in previous years but now required by Congress to
be included in the account.
The Budget funds Fire Preparedness at $349 million, which is a
reduction of $87 million as compared to the fiscal year 2007 estimate
when considering the strategic shifts and creation of the new Wildland
Firefighter account.
We expect that the management improvements implemented and underway
will enable managers to be better prepared for wildfires; help managers
to make better decisions during firefighting operations; and provide
managers with the tools necessary to analyze, understand and manage
fire suppression costs. While the factors of drought, fuels buildup in
our forests and increasing development in fire prone areas have the
potential to keep the number of incidents and total cost of wildfire
suppression high for some time to come, we are confident in our
strategy to address wildland fire suppression costs and are committed
to action. We believe that the measures discussed today promise to
expand efficiency and reduce suppression costs. We look forward to
continued collaboration with our Federal, State, local, Tribal, and
other non-Federal partners to address our shared goal of effectively
managing wildfire suppression costs.
continuing transitional support to rural communities through the
national forest land adjustment for rural communities act
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of
2000 (SRS) (PL 106-393) was enacted to provide transitional assistance
to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from timber
harvests in federal lands. Traditionally, these counties relied on a
share of receipts from timber harvests to supplement local funding for
school systems and roads. Funding from SRS has been used to support
more than 4,400 rural schools and to help maintain county road systems.
In addition SRS has authorized the establishment of over 55 Resource
Advisory Committees (RAC) in 13 States, which has increased the level
of interaction between the Forest Service, local governments, and
citizens resulting in greater support and understanding of the agency's
mission. RACs have implemented more than 4,500 resource projects on
National Forests, Grasslands, and adjacent non-federal lands with a
value from SRS funds and leveraged funds of more than $292 million.
On September 30, 2006 the SRS authorization ended. The last payment
under this authorization was made in December of 2006. The
Administration continues to support a 1-year extension of the SRS Act
with agreed-upon full offsets as an interim step. The Budget
underscores the President's continuing commitment to states and
counties impacted by the ongoing loss of receipts associated with lower
timber harvests on Federal lands. The National Forest Land Adjustment
for Rural communities Act is included in the FY 2008 President's Budget
to fund transition payments targeted to the areas of greatest need, and
to provide counties additional time before payments are phased-out.
Under the proposal, half of land sales proceeds will be available to
offset county payments and half will be available for national forest
acquisition or habitat improvement in the states in which lands are
sold. Counties benefit from four additional years of payments, and
states receive an environmental benefit from exchanging land with low
environmental values for lands with high environmental value.
The National Forest Land Adjustment for Rural Communities Act would
authorize a four-year extension of the funding formerly provided by
SRS. The legislation would also provide conservation funding for
National Forests and Grasslands. Sale of identified National Forest
System lands--similar those lands described in the fiscal year 2007
budget proposal would provide funding to replace that which SRS had
provided. Our new legislation differs from our previous proposal by
including additional provisions which allow for land sale receipts to
also be used for the acquisition of land for the National Forest
System, conservation education, improved access to public lands,
wildlife and fish habitat improvement, and coverage of administrative
costs of land sales and acquisition activities.
This year's proposal addresses the concern that affected states
would not receive financial benefit from the sale of federal lands
within their borders. It does so by including a requirement that 50% of
all land sale receipts be retained for conservation purposes within the
State from which the receipts were derived.
The legislation would authorize the Secretary to sell excess
national forest land or interests in land that the Secretary determines
to be both eligible for disposal and in the public interest. These
parcels meet criteria identified in existing forest land management
plans as potentially suitable for conveyance. Many of these lands are
isolated from other contiguous National Forest System lands, and
because of their location, size, or configuration are not efficiently
managed as components of the National Forest System. Isolated tracts
can be expensive to manage because of boundary management and
encroachment resolution costs. The sales of these lands will not
compromise the integrity of the National Forest System; instead, it
will allow the agency to consolidate federal ownership and reduce
management costs. Land sales would be limited to a list of lands
identified by the Secretary. By selling lands that are inefficient to
manage or have limited ecological value, and subsequently purchasing
critical, environmentally sensitive lands; the Forest Service will
maintain the integrity of the National Forest System, while funding
payments under the Act in a fiscally responsible manner.
Our proposal would authorize the Secretary to sell sufficient
National Forest land to fund an $800 million dollar account. Under the
legislation, 50 percent of receipts obtained from land sales would be
used as a funding source to make SRS payments over a four year period
with a gradual phase-out. The remaining 50 percent of receipts from
land sales within a State would be used for conservation purposes.
Funds from the land sales account would supplement payments to the
states from National Forest and BLM timber receipts. For administrative
purposes, the Secretary of Agriculture would also make the supplemental
payments from this account for the Bureau of Land Management. Timber
receipts are expected to rise over the next five years, which will help
offset the payment phase-out.
Finally, the legislation would authorize the establishment of a
National Advisory Board to advise the Secretary on the land sales and
the use of their proceeds. State governments will be encouraged to
participate in formulating recommendations to the National Advisory
Board for habitat improvement projects and land acquisition needs. By
selling lands that are inefficient, isolated, or of limited-value and
purchasing critical, environmentally sensitive lands, the Forest
Service will maintain the integrity of the National Forest System while
funding payments formerly provided by SRS.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBALL, CHIEF, USDA
FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Kimball. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I'll present an
abbreviated version of my testimony and request that my full
statement be entered into the record.
The Chairman. That will be done, as well as Secretary
Rey's.
Ms. Kimball. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, it is a great privilege to be here today to discuss
the President's budget for the Forest Service in fiscal year
2008. Let me also say, having been Chief of the Forest Service
for almost a month, I am deeply honored to have this
opportunity. I am joined today by Lenice Lago, who is our
Budget Director for the U.S. Forest Service. Let me also
express my appreciation in advance to you, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the committee, for working with the Forest Service
and me during this transition. I have worked for the Forest
Service for over 30 years. I started as a seasonal employee,
went on to serve as Forester, Planner, District Ranger, Forest
Supervisor, Regional Forester and Associate Deputy Chief, among
other positions. I've worked in Oregon, Washington, Alaska,
Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and Idaho and in the Washington
Office here in Washington, DC.
Equipped with these experiences, I am eager to lead the
Forest Service into its second century of service and I am
humbled by the duties entrusted in me as Chief.
In its second century of service, the Forest Service faces
diverse challenges. These include restoring fire adapted
forests to more resilient conditions, providing natural
resource raw material to the American public, providing
sustainable recreation opportunities, mitigating the loss of
open space, addressing the spread of invasive species,
restoring watershed health and more, all during a period of
rapid fragmentation, intensive development and landscape scale
change.
These challenges occur at a time when our Nation is
pursuing deficit reduction goals. The Forest Service is
responding, adapting and modernizing in response to the complex
and evolving environment in which we operate.
This budget request must be viewed in the larger context of
the overall Federal budget in which is presented. Like other
non-defense, domestic, discretionary programs, the Forest
Service faces a constrained budget. The fiscal year 2008
President's budget request for the Forest Service is just over
$4.1 billion, which is approximately the same level of funding
as fiscal year 2006 and a modest reduction below fiscal year
2007.
However, within that total are some important shifts. I'll
briefly discuss three emphasis items and we can discuss other
programs during the question and answer period.
Within wildland fire, we have increased the request for
fire suppression by $160 million over last year. This is due to
the request for fire suppression being based on the 10-year
rolling average cost of fire suppression and the fact that last
year's fire season cost a record $1.5 billion.
The 2008 budget responds to the escalating cost of fire by
refining the concept of appropriate management response toward
a risk-informed fire suppression approach. Under the risk-
informed approach, wildland fire will be managed on a priority
basis as determined by considering whether private property,
infrastructure and human value is most at risk and which
resource benefits are associated with the incident. We will
increase decision support and new tools for this refined
approach.
The 2008 budget maintains funding throughout the programs
that support the Health Forest Initiative, including hazardous
fuels, forest products and applied fire science and serve
cultural research. At least 40 percent of hazardous fuels
funding will be used on projects that contribute to the goal of
improving condition class on at least 250,000 acres by the end
of the fiscal year through the use of the Hazardous Fuel
Reduction Act and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the
Healthy Forest Initiative authorities. I thank you again for
the authorities granted to us.
In addition, the budget supports a hazardous fuels
reduction target of 3 million acres, a timber sales target of
3.5 billion board feet and fully funds the Northwest Forest
Plan.
Law enforcement is also increased in this budget,
recognizing the increase of violent activity and crime across
the National Forest System, particularly along the Arizona
border, in California with the drug trafficking organizations,
and in other areas of the National Forest System. We've
requested an increase of $13 million.
In order to fund these high priority programs, the budget
makes hard tradeoffs to other programs. Moreover, efficiencies
gained through the centralization of business operations,
planning rule revisions and renewed focus on collaborative
management will help offset reductions under the fiscal year
2008 budget request.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's
budget. I look forward to working with all of you to implement
our fiscal year 2008 program and I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimball follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, USDA Forest Service
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a great privilege
to be here today to discuss the President's budget for the Forest
Service in fiscal year 2008. Let me also say, having been Chief of the
Forest Service for just a month, I am deeply honored to have this
opportunity.
First, I want to express my gratitude to Secretary Johanns for his
confidence in me, and to thank the dedicated, hard-working employees of
the Forest Service for their support and encouragement. Let me also
express my appreciation in advance to you Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee for working with the Forest Service and me during this
transition.
I will begin by saying a few words about myself and my long-time
commitment to the Forest Service. I have worked in the Forest Service
for more than 30 years. I started as a seasonal employee and went on to
serve as Forester, Planner, District Ranger, Forest Supervisor,
Regional Forester, and Associate Deputy Chief, among other positions. I
have worked in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana,
and Washington, DC. Equipped with these experiences, I am eager to lead
the Forest Service into its second century of service, and am humbled
by the duties entrusted in me as Chief.
For those new members who may be unfamiliar with our agency, the
U.S. Forest Service works to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the Nation's 193 million acres of national forests and
grasslands. We not only steward the National Forest System, but also
provide states, Tribes, and private forest landowners with technical
and financial assistance. Moreover, we are the world's largest forestry
research organization.
In its second century of service, the Forest Service faces diverse
challenges. These include restoring fire-adapted forests to more
resilient conditions, providing natural resource raw materials to the
American public, providing sustainable recreation opportunities,
mitigating the loss of open space, addressing the spread of invasive
species, restoring watershed health, and more--all during a period of
rapid fragmentation, intensive development, and landscape-scale change.
These challenges occur at a time when our nation is pursuing deficit
reduction goals. The Forest Service is responding, adapting, and
modernizing in response to the complex and evolving environment in
which we operate.
Before I begin my testimony on the 2008 Budget however, I would
like to reflect on Chief Bosworth's leadership and some of his many
achievements during these past six years.
the forest service under chief bosworth
When Chief Bosworth took the helm of the Forest Service, the
agency's finances were in disarray. The General Accountability Office
had listed the Forest Service among agencies at high risk for waste,
fraud, and abuse. Under Dale Bosworth's leadership, the agency
progressed from being ``in receivership,'' to achieving five
consecutive clean audit opinions from the USDA Office of the Inspector
General. Chief Bosworth reduced overhead costs, reorganized the Deputy
areas by eliminating two Deputy Chief positions and reducing staff, and
guided the agency through the centralization and reengineering of its
business processes whose net cost reductions will approach $100 million
by fiscal year 2008. The Forest Service's improved business policies,
processes, and organization have enhanced internal controls, eliminated
duplication, and created accurate and complete financial data. Under
the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, Chief Bosworth oversaw
hazardous fuels reduction on more than 8.5 million acres. Further, the
Chief responded with confidence and composure to such momentous
challenges as September 11th; the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster;
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; and a period of wildland fire frequency
and severity heretofore unprecedented in the modern era. Chief Bosworth
skillfully ushered the Forest Service into the 21st Century's complex
and demanding environment.
forest service fiscal year 2008 budget
This budget request must be viewed in the larger context of the
overall federal budget in which it is presented. Like other non-defense
domestic discretionary programs, the Forest Service faces a constrained
budget. And the results of the Administration's policies on economic
growth and fiscal restraint include cutting the deficit in half, three
years sooner than originally predicted. The fiscal year 2008
President's Budget request for the Forest Service is $4.127 billion,
which is approximately the same level of funding as fiscal year 2006
and a modest reduction below fiscal year 2007. However, within that
total are some important shifts: the budget makes important changes to
the Wildland Fire account, maintains funding for Healthy Forests
including the commitment to fully fund the Northwest Forest Plan to
provide 800 million board feet of timber, and emphasizes public health
and safety by proposing a significant increase in the Law Enforcement
Operations budget. These increases are offset by reductions in other
programs so that wider administration goals of supporting the Global
War on Terror and sustaining the momentum of the economic recovery can
continue. The President's Budget addresses reductions by continuing or
implementing new cost saving measures and by enhancing efficiencies and
streamlining management and organization.
Wildland Fire.--During the 2006 fire season the United States
experienced more than 95,000 wildfire ignitions, and more than 9.9
million acres burned. Of those 9.9 million acres burned, approximately
5 million acres were on Federal lands and the balance on non-Federal
lands. The Forest Service continued its excellent track record in
protecting lives, property, and the environment. However, as occurred
in 4 of the last 7 years, in 2006 the Forest Service spent over $1
billion for suppression activities--a record $1.5 billion. The
increasing frequency of ``billion dollar'' fire-fighting years is
driving up the 10 year average suppression cost figure, which is used
to determine annual suppression funding levels.
The 2008 Budget responds to escalating fire costs in three
important ways. First, the budget provides funding for suppression at
the 10 year average level, adjusted for inflation. The 2008 Budget
funds Suppression at $911 million--a 23 percent increase over 2007
levels of $741 million. Further, the 2008 Budget reflects refinement of
the concept of ``appropriate management response'' toward a risk-
informed fire suppression approach. Under the risk-informed approach,
wildland fire will be managed on a priority basis as determined by
considering private property, infrastructure, and human values most at-
risk and resource benefits associated with the incident. In 2008 we
will increase our decision support for this refined approach. New
tools, including improved fire behavior monitoring and prediction, and
costs and benefits of alternative suppression strategies will help
managers decide how to respond to fires. In addition, the 2008 Budget
pursues a more efficient and precise budget structure by establishing a
separate account for ``firefighter'' expenditures. The 2008 Budget
requests $220 million for this new appropriation, which will fund
salary and training for 10,000 firefighters and 67 type I hot shot
crews.
Healthy Forests.--The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) was launched
in 2002 to reduce administrative process delays to implementing
projects, and Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
(HFRA) in 2003. The Act provides improved statutory processes for
hazardous fuel reduction projects on certain types of at-risk National
Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands and also provides
other authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuels and
restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of all
ownerships. The 2008 Budget maintains funding throughout the programs
that support the Healthy Forests Initiative, including Hazardous Fuels,
Forest Products, and applied Fire Science and Silvicultural Research.
At least 40 percent of hazardous fuels funding will be used on projects
that contribute to the goal of improving condition class on at least
250,000 acres by the end of the fiscal year through the use of HFRA and
HFI authorities. In addition, the Budget supports a hazardous fuels
reduction target of 3 million acres, a timber sales target of 3.5
billion board feet, and fully funds the Northwest Forest Plan,
including a significant increase in Capital Improvement and Maintenance
(Roads) to maintain the road infrastructure needed to support Northwest
Forest Plan timber sales.
Law Enforcement Operations.--The 2008 Budget proposes a $13 million
increase in Law Enforcement Operations. Recent years have seen a
significant increase in crime on National Forests, causing resource
impacts and increasing risks to public and employee safety. Agency law
enforcement officers are increasingly responding to violent crimes,
including rape, homicide, domestic disputes, assault, robbery, drug
manufacturing and trafficking, and other serious felony crimes. In
addition, law enforcement officers routinely respond to traffic
accidents, search and rescue, medical or emergency assistance,
hazardous materials spills, domestic terrorist activity, large group
events and gang activity. In addition to reducing the impacts on
natural resources and avoiding the associated costs of restoration, the
requested funding increase will enable the Forest Service to maintain
public and employee security and reduce illegal occupancy of National
Forests.
In order to fund these high priority programs, the Budget makes
hard tradeoffs to other programs. Moreover, efficiencies gained through
the centralization of Business Operations, Planning Rule revisions, and
renewed focus on collaborative management will help offset reductions
under the fiscal year 2008 Budget request. In fiscal year 2008 and
fiscal year 2009, the agency will further its efforts to optimize
organizational efficiency by restructuring leadership and program
management functions at its National and Regional Offices. In order to
provide additional funding for on-the-ground performance, many
headquarters and regional activities will be consolidated on a
centralized basis, and appropriate program management functions will be
zoned across multiple regions. The Forest Service will realize
personnel cost decreases of approximately 25 percent in National and
Regional Office operations by the end of fiscal year 2009. An executive
Steering team, led by Eastern Regional Forester Randy Moore, has been
appointed to oversee the reorganization effort.
I will now discuss program changes of the Research, State and
Private Forestry, National Forest System, Capital Improvement and
Maintenance, and Land Acquisition accounts.
forest & rangeland research
The Forest Service Research Program is a globally recognized leader
at exploring the fundamental ecological, biological, social, and
economic questions and issues challenging natural resource management
and conservation in the modern era. Not only do Forest Service research
efforts inform Forest Service management, conservation, education, and
outreach activities; but importantly, our Research programs inform the
conservation activities of the global community.
The 2008 Budget funds Research at $263 million. This is a 7 percent
decrease from the 2007 funding estimate of $280 million. The budget
eliminates funding for un-requested Congressional earmarks and employs
investment criteria to ensure alignment between research projects and
strategic priorities. Funding priorities within the request include
continued research to improve large fire decision support, particularly
with respect to improving managers' ability to predict probability of
fire occurrence and spread related to values at risk, long-term
integrated planning, successful collaboration with communities, and
further development of improved tools for integrated risk analysis. The
invasive species program area includes new funding for research on
biological control of invasive weeds. To help meet the Nation's energy
needs there is an increase of $1.3 million to enhance research on wood-
based bio-fuels development and conversion processes, bio-refinery
applications, energy efficient housing, and processing and
manufacturing energy reduction, life cycle analysis of wood, and
marketing analysis for energy and bio-based products. The 2008 Budget
also retains support for Forest Inventory and Analysis, which is of
great importance in the context of tracking today's dramatic ecological
changes and their effects on forest resources.
Forest Service Research and Development has focused on
strengthening the conformance of its research program with the
President's Management Agenda criteria for Federal research agencies:
quality, relevance and performance. Research has identified 7 Strategic
Program Areas (SPA), and developed strategic plans for each one.
Further, Research plans to conduct national external panel reviews of
each SPA, as well as reviews of each Research Station's alignment with
the SPAs. These include periodic peer review and evaluation of all
scientist positions through the Research Panel Process, peer review of
proposed study plans and manuscripts for publication, and periodic
updating of station quality assurance and quality control plans. During
2006, a restructuring of the Research headquarters staff was initiated
to improve responsiveness, quality, relevance, performance and
efficiency.
state & private forestry
The State and Private Forestry program is a critical component of
the Forest Service's conservation mission in that it connects the
agency's research and federal public lands-based programs to those of
states and private individuals and entities. State and Private Forestry
programs work across boundaries to conserve forested landscapes and
open spaces, and protect the ecological services they provide. State
and Private Forestry programs assist successful conservation of the
nation's natural resources by enhancing cooperation between
individuals, non-governmental organizations, states, and the federal
government.
The 2008 Budget funds State and Private Forestry at $203 million,
an 11 percent decrease from 2007 funding levels of $229 million.
Funding will be focused on priority activities in the Forest Health and
Cooperative Fire programs.
The Forest Health program will receive more than $90 million and
provide for treatments of invasive and native pests on more than
600,000 acres of priority forest and rangelands. When combined with
funds received under the National Fire Plan, the total acreage will
increase by almost one-third and will yield close to 800,000 acres of
treatments. Attention will be placed on priority pests such as the
southern pine beetle, the western bark beetle and slowing the spread of
gypsy moth. In fiscal year 2008, the Forest Health program will
emphasize increased early survey and monitoring efforts against
invasive species. These activities are important and integral to the
overall program--increasing the agency's ability to prevent and detect
problems early is a more cost-effective way to deal with invasives than
treatments after wide spread infestations have occurred.
The Cooperative Fire program will receive more than $42 million and
will help more than 9,800 communities protect themselves from
disastrous wildland fires. The majority of funds allow the Forest
Service to provide financial assistance to state and local fire
agencies, which in turn use the grant monies to develop and implement
cooperative wildland fire preparedness programs and conduct hazardous
fuel treatments around communities. A very successful program funded
under the Cooperative Fire activity is Firewise, which emphasizes
individual responsibility for fire hazard mitigation on community and
private property. The program provides education and support to
community leaders, and assistance with mitigating wildland fire hazards
around structures. Moreover, the program leverages $4 dollars in local
matching funds for every federal dollar spent, allowing the program to
assist more communities.
Finally, more than $66 million in the State and Private Forestry
program will fund priority Cooperative Forestry programs including the
Forest Legacy Program, which will receive $29 million. These funds will
be used on 14 projects and which are expected to conserve 97,000 acres
of important forest resources. To date, more than 1.4 million acres of
environmentally important private lands have been protected through the
Forest Legacy Program and with more than 429 million acres of the
Nation's forest held in private ownership this program continues to be
important to prevent critical forest lands from being converted or
fragmented.
The balance of funding in the Cooperative Forestry program will
fund Forest Stewardship and Urban and Community Forestry activities.
All State and Private programs will focus on national goals to produce
public benefit outcomes. State-developed resource plans will identify
priority response to national goals. This approach is designed to
connect with all ownerships in a collective effort to achieve healthy
forest objectives and protect human communities from wildland fire.
national forest system appropriations
The National Forest System account provides funds for the
stewardship and management of National Forests and Grasslands. The 2008
Budget requests $1.344 billion for this account, which is a net
programmatic reduction of $67 million or 5 percent from the fiscal year
2007 estimate. This decrease from prior year levels reflects greater
efficiencies gained through organizational restructuring of leadership
and program management functions at the National and Regional Offices.
In order to provide additional funding for on-the-ground performance,
many headquarters and regional activities will be consolidated on a
centralized basis, and appropriate program management functions will be
zoned across multiple regions. Moreover, efficiencies gained through
the centralization of Business Operations, Planning Rule revisions, and
renewed focus on collaborative management will help offset reductions
under the fiscal year 2008 Budget.
As discussed previously, the fiscal year 2008 Budget supports full
funding for the Northwest Forest Plan and emphasizes pubic safety.
Specifically, the National Forest System 2008 Budget proposes $319
million for Forest Products, an increase of 5 percent. Funds allow for
the continued full implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and
support an overall timber sales target of 3.5 billion board feet,
including 800 million board feet from the Northwest Forest Plan. The
Budget also proposes an increase of $13 million to Law Enforcement for
a total of $124 million. The increased funding will be used to hire,
train, and equip 47 new law enforcement officers and special agents.
Increased visibility of law enforcement will improve public and
employee safety and address foreign drug trafficking organizations on
the National Forests.
The 2008 Budget proposes to hold funding in Grazing Management at
prior year levels for a total of $47 million. Maintaining this level
will enable the Agency to comply with the Rescissions Act of 1995 by
completing the backlog of NEPA-based environmental analysis.
Funds are available to other programs in the National Forest System
account to address highest priority needs. The 2008 Budget proposes
funding for Land Management Planning at $53 million, a decrease of 6
percent. Funds will be used to support work to complete 16 Land
Management Plan revisions and continue work of another 16 plan
revisions, all of which are being developed using the new Planning
Rule. The fiscal year 2008 Budget also proposes $146 million for
Inventory and Monitoring programs, a decrease of 10 percent. Funds will
focus on forest plan monitoring and establishing Environmental
Management Systems on 50 National Forest units, which completes the
requirement of the 2005 Planning Rule. Environmental Management Systems
are a comprehensive approach to improving the management of
environmental issues and performance on individual units.
The 2008 Budget proposes funding for Recreation, Heritage, and
Wilderness at $231 million, a decrease of 9 percent. In fiscal year
2008, the agency will continue to emphasize implementation of the
travel management rule in order to address issues of unmanaged
recreation, visitor safety and resource protection. By fiscal year end,
the agency will have 48 percent of National Forest System lands covered
by travel plans. Program funds will permit continued operation of
recreation sites, although some reduction in seasons and hours for
visitor information services may occur in some locations. National
Forests are currently undertaking a process to analyze their recreation
facilities and evaluate the future needs of the recreating public. The
process, the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning, is an analysis
tool, to encourage dialogue amongst a variety of interested communities
on the changing demands for recreation facilities on national forests
and what options may exist to respond to those changes.
The recreation program will continue to strengthen relationships
with private, volunteer-based, and nonprofit organizations to ensure
some capacity levels are maintained and more particular to make
programs and services relevant to youth in diverse and underserved
populations.
The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget requests $71 million for
Minerals and Geology Management program, a decrease of 14 percent. The
energy component of the program will focus on increasing opportunities
for environmentally sensitive development and supply of oil and gas,
coal, and geothermal resources from Federal lands in support of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Funding levels to support environmental
compliance and environmental restoration will continue at prior year
levels to ensure required audits are continued and to focus on cleaning
up publicly accessible abandoned mines and other contaminated sites in
high priority watersheds.
The budget also proposes funding for Wildlife and Fisheries
Management at $118 million, a decrease of 8 percent, and for Vegetation
and Watershed Management at $154 million, a program decrease of 12
percent. Focus in the wildlife and fisheries program will be on
improving fish and aquatic passage, recovery of the Columbia basin
salmon, and on-going recovery efforts of other species including the
Bighorn Sheep.
In addition to efficiencies garnered through organizational
alignment and greater use of the new Planning Rule, the Forest Service
will continue to achieve efficiencies by centralizing Business
Operations, utilizing email and video conferencing to lower travel
costs, realigning the Agency, and will see these efficiencies and
reduced costs continue over time. The net result is to maintain our
foremost commitment to the land and focus funding on where the work
gets done.
capital improvement & maintenance
The Capital Improvement & Maintenance Program provides for, and
maintains, the infrastructure for many Forest Service programs
including; the transportation networks upon which many of our
management operations, projects, and users depend; the recreational
infrastructure, including trails that serve many diverse populations;
and facilities that house Forest Service employees.
The 2008 Budget funds Capital Improvement & Maintenance at $422.5
million, a net programmatic increase of $15 million. To support the
goal of selling 3.5 billion board feet of timber, the 2008 Budget
requests an additional $17 million for Road Improvement and
Maintenance. In addition to this request, the Forest Service will
continue to receive revenues from sites conveyed under authorities
provided by the Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act, which has to
date provided $34 million in receipts to convey unneeded administrative
sites and retain the proceeds for building maintenance, rehabilitation,
and construction.
land acquisition
Land covered by urban areas has more than doubled over the last 40
years, and more than 44 million acres of private forests are at-risk of
being developed by 2030. The Land Acquisition account enables the
Forest Service to perennially stay abreast of, and act upon, the
changing land-use patterns, demographic trends, and ecological changes.
The Land Acquisition program allows us to pursue landscape
connectivity, by purchasing in-holdings and keystone habitat parcels,
and to manage the national forests as ecosystems rather than simply as
real estate.
The 2008 Budget funds Land Acquisitions at $16.99 million. This
includes $8 million to purchase land and $7.7 million for acquisition
management. The funding will allow us to move forward with 7 high
priority acquisitions. The funding request continues a trend of
declining budgets for land acquisition. However, the Budget also
contains a legislative proposal that permits the Forest Service to
retain upwards of $400 million in land sales for acquisition of
national forest lands. The parcels to be sold have already been
identified as suitable for sale or exchange because they are isolated
or inefficient to manage. Lands with high environmental value will not
be offered for sale, while acquisitions would focus on parcels that
enhance the environmental integrity of our National Forests. Given the
importance of maintaining assets already in federal ownership, the
Budget strikes a good balance with the need to acquire and preserve
special places.
conclusion
Priority forest management issues such as reducing hazardous fuels
in the Wildland Urban Interface and prevention of property destruction
by catastrophic wildfires will be increasingly integrated with other
pressing policy issues, including sequestering carbon, preserving open
space, improving watershed health, and other mission-driven goals. We
are addressing the costs of wildland fire suppression to mitigate
constraints on other Forest Service programs. Our risk-based
suppression approach and Healthy Forests Initiative fuels reduction
work--much like our Business Operations centralization and
collaborative management efforts--will reap tremendous mid- and long-
term efficiencies in the contexts of agency budgets and reducing risk
to human communities posed by wildland fire. The 2008 Budget reflects
the President's commitment to providing the critical resources needed
for our Nation's highest priorities. The 2008 Budget also responds to
the national need for deficit reduction while preparing the Forest
Service for a new, more collaborative, era of natural resource
management. With this Budget, the Forest Service will continue to
identify and support more efficient and effective methods of pursuing
its mission. This will be accomplished through increased collaboration,
the use of legislative authorities, expanded program efficiencies, and
improved organizational and financial management. Through these efforts
the Forest Service will continue to sustain the health and productivity
of the Nation's forests and grasslands.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Budget. I
look forward to working with you to implement our fiscal year 2008
program, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We'll just do 5-minute
rounds. Let me start and ask about an issue that Senator
Domenici raised in his opening statement. This is on the
funding for the Valles Caldara. Under the continuing resolution
that we just passed, the administration has broad discretion as
to what level of funding it is going to provide in the
remainder of 2007 for the Valles Caldara. Have you settled on
what level of funding is going to be provided, Secretary Rey?
Mr. Rey. Yeah, we met with some of the officers of the
trust and they asked for $3.5 million and that's what we're
going to fund them at.
The Chairman. Three point five million dollars, he
indicated, and we appreciate that. A concern that I have is I
think the one Senator Domenici also expressed, and that is that
in the 2008 budget, which we've been given, the request is for
$850,000. The $3.5 million is a much more realistic figure for
what is needed in order to maintain that size property and do
what is needed there. Why is it that the administration is
proposing that kind of a major cut in 2008?
Mr. Rey. That's actually not a cut from our 2007
President's request. I think we requested about that level,
give or take a few thousand dollars in 2007. The slight
decrease from 2007 request is a reflection of the fact that
they've been able to increase their receipts slightly.
Generally speaking, we're eager to see the trustees work
toward making good on the commitment to eventually become self-
sustaining. We think that objective is benefited by the dialog
we will have with you during the appropriations process. They
have made some progress, to their credit. They've fallen behind
in some areas, in some cases, for reasons that are not wholly
their fault. They're making less money on hunting today than
the Dunigan family made when the Dunigans owned this as private
land. That's because the State of New Mexico, Department of
Fish and Game stepped in upon the change of the land status and
limited the number of high- end hunting permits that the trust
could provide, arguing that these were now public lands and
that they were therefore, more subject to the limitations that
the State Fish and Game agency wanted to impose.
Now, that's great if you are a New Mexico resident. It
means that you have access to more trophy elk than you did
before when these were private lands, where public hunting was
regulated by a lottery system that the Dunigans controlled at a
higher premium. But it means that the trust is actually making
less money now, not more than was the case under--when the land
was privately owned. We look at what the trust is spending per
acre today, to manage these lands as compared to the
surrounding national forest. The trust is spending $42.30 per
acre to manage these lands. The national forest surrounding it
is spending an average of $17.87 per acre to manage these lands
and we're picking up all their fire suppression costs.
So the progress that was envisioned in the original
legislation is very slow in coming and I fear it probably won't
come at all unless we have these kinds of conversations during
the appropriations process. I'm hopeful that the trust is
successful because I don't frankly want to have to assume the
full responsibility of managing this land if it's not. But at
least right now, their progress has been significant toward
hitting that long-term goal.
Now maybe we ought to reassess that and maybe that goal was
unrealistic. Maybe we ought to manage this more like we do the
Presidio Trust, which is a separate line in the Interior and
related agencies' budget, not coming out of the budget at any
of the other Interior agencies. Then let the trust stand on its
own before Congress without us as an intermediary, saying what
they are doing is good, bad or indifferent--because frankly,
our role is not to do that. It's just to point out that we are
where we're at.
The Chairman. Let me just ask one more question because my
time is just about expired here. Regarding county payments,
your proposal is to phaseout the program over 4 years, as I
understand your testimony.
Mr. Rey. It would be over 5 years, if you add 2007 into the
mix--2007 through 2011.
The Chairman. OK. And the proposal is that total funding
for the program would be reduced about 30 percent in 2008 from
2007 levels?
Mr. Rey. A little--that's about right. We can talk about
the----
The Chairman. Another 30 percent in 2009, then 20 percent
the following year and about 10 percent the last year, is that
it?
Mr. Rey. That's about the glide path we proposed, but
that's something we would be happy to work with you on.
The Chairman. Why is it your view that the program should
be phased out?
Mr. Rey. Well, the program that was initially drafted in
2000 was a transition measure, a transitory measure to give the
counties time to adjust to the change in the economies of many
of these western States associated with the reduction of the
Timber Sale Program and the increase in other activities. Six
years later, some counties have made the transition and many
haven't. When we introduced our proposal last year, what we
said was, we thought that an additional one-time re-
authorization was justified to assist where the transition
hadn't been completed, but we are keen in seeing that
transition eventually be completed. We're turning to the
original 1908 agreement where we shared a quarter of our gross
receipts with the counties, whatever those receipts are, as a
result of our management.
The Chairman. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Rey, I think the discussion we've had with reference to Valles
Caldara is good. I think sooner or later, we're going to have
to have a sit-down with the State of New Mexico's appropriate
officials and talk about such things as a limitation on fees
from hunting, the restriction that is being imposed under
current interpretation of the statute and see what we can do.
There is no question that we have good seasons and bad ones for
elk hunting but this ranch, if in the hands of the private
sector, would yield far more money than we're able to have
garnered because of interpretation of the limitations imposed
by this State statute.
Now, the other reason they need some money to get going is
that it's a beautiful place but Congress has determined that
the public ought to use it as compared with the forest, if you
just had the Forest Service up there. I mean, it's a big piece
of Forest Service property. In the meantime, though, whoever's
running it has to determine what to give the people so they can
use it. Interestingly enough, some of that costs some money.
Roads, buildings and the like--there's no question that people
want to see that place, be on it and use it. When the trust has
very little money, it can offer little or no amenities to make
money.
Now we really do appreciate your coming down on the side of
$3.5, which was the amount we had appropriated. That was about
to disappear because of the fiasco that we've had here, is that
correct? So we weren't too far off when they came down with a
$3.5, as what they need to move ahead.
Now I'll move to one other question of prior liability.
Secretary, at our last hearing at the end of January, you and I
spoke about two or three things Congress could do legislatively
to address the issue of liability insurance for wildland
firefighters. At that time, you committed to getting us some
concepts in legislative language regarding this issue. When can
we expect these concepts and legislative language from you, if
some are forthcoming?
Mr. Rey. In response to the drafting request that your
staff made, we should be able to get something to you before
the end of the week.
Senator Domenici. And sir, can we talk about what it is
going to look like?
Mr. Rey. It will be very straightforward. It will be
designed to address the two things that we talked about at the
January 30 hearing. First to extend the eligibility for our
Federal firefighters to buy liability insurance at a specified
rate that other first responders can acquire it, so that they
are insured for liability purposes. Then second, to separate
our internal fire investigations--which are accident
investigations designed to learn from, for future safety
purposes--from the existing investigation that is required by
the statute passed by the committee two Congresses ago by our
Inspector General, which could subject anybody involved in the
investigation to criminal sanctions. So what we propose in that
second change is to do something very comparable to the way the
military runs its accident investigations, and separating the
two, so that cooperating with the accident investigation
doesn't automatically expose you to criminal liability.
Senator Domenici. I want to thank you and you get that
language ready--what will it do to that issue of insuring and
making insurance available to firefighters? Would you just talk
a minute for the record?
Mr. Rey. Sure. I think the ability to purchase insurance
will alleviate the concern of many of our rank and file
supervisors that they are exposed to liability on their own,
with no protection. The second change won't necessarily
reassure our firefighters, but it will allow us to conduct
accident investigations in an open fashion and try to get as
much information as possible to discern the cause of an
accident. If there is a remedy, we can apply that remedy later
and do that in a way that doesn't make that information
immediately accessible to a separate, independent investigator,
who by statute is bound to turn his investigatory work over to
a U.S. attorney if he sees any evidence of criminal negligence.
The reason in the 2002 legislation to have a separate
investigation by our Inspector General was to ensure that there
was an independent investigation in every instance of fire
fatality. Interestingly, that didn't apply to the Department of
the Interior or the States; just the Forest Service. But be
that as it may, that was a reflection on the fact that there
was some uneasiness that the Forest Service's internal
investigation would be sufficiently independent. Well, if
that's the case, then there shouldn't be any reasonable
objection to letting us insulate the information acquired in
that internal investigation from a potential criminal charge.
Failing to do that causes everyone who is going to be
interrogated either by RIG or interviewed in our internal
investigation or both, to assume that they are both the same
and to decide that as individuals, they should apply the same
standard of prudence in both cases and not say anything unless
they are advised by an attorney to cooperate. That's not an
unreasonable position to take if you're facing criminal
liability for a decision that you make or witness in the call
of duty under extreme circumstances. But if that stands
unchanged, it will impede the quality of our accident
investigations and inhibit our ability to get people to speak
freely about what exactly happened, so that we have a basis for
evaluating whether it's a problem that can be fixed.
The Chairman. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman and
Ranking Member Domenici, for holding this hearing. Let me just
start out by saying first to you, Chief Kimball,
congratulations on being the Chief and knowing and recognizing
that you are the first female Chief of the Forest Service in
our history. I think it is an important milestone, so my
congratulations to you. And welcome back, Under Secretary Rey.
Let me just make a comment, and then I have two questions,
and we'll use up my 5 minutes in that way. First of all, I
think for most of us who sit on this committee, with the
exception of probably Vermont, the Federal Government really is
a big dog in our State. And I look at Colorado--we have 11
national forests and two national grasslands. Twenty percent of
my State is owned by the Federal Government and the Forest
Service, so these are issues which I think those of us in the
West, regardless of our party, are very interested in. We
recognize the huge impact that your land holdings have on our
States, so when we're explaining taxes or other kinds of issues
that are being discussed here, they'll always be incredibly
important for all of us.
My first question to you has to do with funding. First,
overall, and then second, with respect to Region 2. I don't
frankly understand how it is that we can move forward with the
continued decline in funding for the Forest Service in the way
that we have. When you look at the numbers that I have, it
appears that we are doing a $64.5 million reduction from last
year's budget, from the President's budget overall. When you
compare the President's budget to fiscal year 2001, some 6
years ago, it's a 7 percent reduction. And yet for the last 2
years that I've sat on this Committee, I've heard the great
concerns that we're not funding the Forest Service adequately.
When you look at the region--U.S. Forest Service Region 2, from
which we have a number of colleagues on this Committee:
Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas--the
number in that budget is decreased by 12.5 percent. That's a
$28 million decrease in fiscal year 2007--a $28 million
decrease. So my question is: With the decreases and the
trajectory, how is it, Chief Kimball and Under Secretary Rey,
that you can do your job? That's the first question. I'd like
Chief Kimball to go first and then Under Secretary Rey.
The second question that I have for you is the proposed
sale of public lands. Again, you address that briefly in your
opening comments, Under Secretary Rey, but I'd like to know
what is different from the proposal this year than last year,
that would allow a different kind of sentiment? You heard loud
and clear from my Republican and Democratic colleagues on this
committee, that that was absolutely the wrong way to go.
So Chief Kimball, why don't you take a minute and then
Under Secretary Rey, you take a minute.
Ms. Kimball. All the regions will experience a shift in
budget in this 2008 budget, given what is happening with fire
suppression and the whole wildland fire accounting line in our
2008 budget. Certainly the fire year we had in 2006 has a
tremendous impact on what is available then, to be distributed
to the national forests across the country. In 2002, I did have
the privilege of serving as the Forest Supervisor on the Big
Horn National Forest in Wyoming and on the Pike in San Isabel
in Colorado and Kansas and I'm very aware of the budget
disparities that have been historical amongst the regions.
We've made quite some effort, actually, to be moving dollars to
Region 2, to address some different things like the Front Range
Fuels Project there in Colorado, certainly addressing the
Timber Program on the Black Hills National Forest and others.
We're undertaking some efforts nationally to reduce the size of
our Washington office and regional offices. We're re-looking at
how we provide overhead, how we provide----
Senator Salazar. Let me just say, I look forward to working
with you on those issues because I think all of my colleagues
in Region 2 and especially I feel this way. I feel like we have
been kind of the orphan region of the U.S. Forest Service and I
want to see how we can get that reversed.
Under Secretary Rey.
Mr. Rey. Sure. With respect to the budget, let me make a
couple of quick observations. First, we are in a tight budget
environment. Many of the reductions that you see there are
offset by efficiencies, with probably one glaring exception,
and that is the amount of budget that fire suppression is
consuming overall. And we're willing to work with the Congress
to look for alternative ways to fund fire suppression. In 2003,
we proposed an alternative of a governmentwide emergency
contingency account and I think as far as we're concerned, that
offer is still on the table.
Second observation on budget is that in all of our USDA
agencies, our 2008 budget was prepared in conjunction with our
farm bill proposal and as we get into specific budget lines,
where there is overlap between the two, I'd be happy to talk
with the committee about some of the proposals that we're
making to increase funding in mandatory funding areas that in
part or in total, are going to offset some decreases.
Now, with regard to secure rural schools----
Senator Salazar. My time is up and I appreciate those
comments and I look forward to working with you on those
issues. Additionally, just keep it on your mind and also Chief
Kimball's mind before the committee, this bark beetle problem
that has infested a million acres now in Colorado and has
spread into Wyoming and Idaho and a whole host of other places.
It is going to be a continuing huge issue for me and I look
forward to working with you on those issues. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will let you pick
up on the secure rural schools comment you were making and try
to put it into the context of that which you proposed. I'm
listening, but I'm struggling with the idea that we're going to
sell capitol assets for the purpose of funding an ongoing
annualized expense. I understand you figure you can gain net
greater acreage. Walk us through that a little more so we
better understand it, and secondarily, the question will then
come, are you assuming you can get to a full-blown Northwest
Forest Plan without appeals and being locked up in the court
again by the environmental community? Have you bullet-proofed
yourself there so we can get to those kind of receipts? Then
third, when fire suppression costs go from 21 percent of the
budget in 2000 to 45 percent of the budget today, Chief, that's
a reality that we have to grasp a hold of. The both of you
respond to that set of questions.
Mr. Rey. Okay, let's start with Secure Rural Schools. In
our proposal last year, I think we heard three major categories
of objections. First, it was a bad idea to sell capitol assets
to fund ongoing expenses; second, it was a bad idea generally,
to sell Federal lands because Federal lands are sacrosanct; and
third, there was an equity associated with where the Federal
lands were being sold versus where the schools were being
funded. They weren't the same in every State.
So we listened hard to those three objections and our
proposal now is to sell Federal lands--a reduced inventory. We
did have public comment on the complete inventory of lands and
some people chose to offer broad comments on my parentage or
other broader matters, but other people actually looked at
specific tracts and said back when we did the inventory and the
review, a red cockaded woodpecker hadn't moved into that tract,
and now it has, and we didn't account for that. And they were
right. So we dropped about 27,000 acres off the inventory of
eligible tracts to put forward in the proposal this year.
But we also suggested that when we sold these lands, we
would use half the money to fund the schools and the other half
to fund land acquisition or other conservation purposes,
proportionately to where the lands were sold. So if we sell 2
million acres of Federal land in Mississippi--$2 million worth
of Federal land in Mississippi, $1 million of that will go to
the schools, $1 million of it will go back to acquire land in
Mississippi.
Now, the land that we typically acquire to add to the
National Forest System is over--looking at the history of our
exchange program, land that is economically less valuable and
environmentally more valuable. Conversely, the land that we
convey is economically more valuable and ecologically less
valuable. Over the past 5 years, in our normal exchange
process, we have acquired 3 acres for every acre that we have
conveyed. So under our proposal, if we raise $800 million from
selling land and take $400 million of that and buy land, we
will be buying 3 acres for every acre that we conveyed and that
will result in probably about a 2 to 1 increase in overall
Federal acreage of lands that are more ecologically valuable by
their nature and therefore more suitable for inclusion in the
National Forest System. And we will do that faster than we can
do it through an exchange because an exchange requires that we
find somebody who has the land we want and wants the land we
have or some third party to broker the effort, in a very
tortious and time-consuming process.
So if the concern was, as many people said, that selling
Federal land is a bad idea, the answer is, first we exchange in
and out of ownerships all the time. Second, the land we're
going to buy is more valuable as well as a larger land base
than the land we're going to sell.
Now as far as selling capitol assets to fund ongoing
expenses, in this proposal, we're selling capitol assets to buy
more desirable capitol assets and funding what we believe is an
important one-time extension of the program, to help the
counties adjust.
Ms. Kimball. On the Northwest Forest Plan, Region 6 and
Region 5 have made tremendous progress between 2001 and 2006 in
increasing their program through the resolution of quite a
number of lawsuits, through quite a bit of public involvement,
work with collaborative groups and in gaining support for the
needed vegetative management work that is part of the Northwest
Forest Plan. So our intent here in fully funding the Northwest
Forest Plan is to address those things where we have been
successful over the last 5 years and hopefully to continue
that.
Senator Craig. Sure. I spoke to fire but my time is up.
I'll come back on the second round. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The meeting
tomorrow is going to be interesting, dealing with the Secure
Rural Schools Program. I'm not on that subcommittee but I will
tell you that I don't know if you can sell land of low
environmental value and buy land at environmental value and be
able to triple your assets. I'll trust that that's correct but
it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't want to get into
this because there is a lot of other issues and it's already
been dealt with.
Chief Kimball, it's very, very good to see you here. This
is a great position for you. You've got a tremendous amount of
respect from the work that you've already done and the work
you've done in Montana, and I really appreciate you here at
this table, as well as the other folks that are testifying.
As we deal with cuts to the Recreation, Wilderness and
Heritage program of about $29 million, the Rocky Mountain West,
as you well know, is probably the fastest growing region in the
country. We've got people that are moving there for
recreational opportunities primarily and as I see it, this
budget would diminish access and recreational opportunities by
potentially closing campgrounds and offering fewer services.
Could you address that issue?
Ms. Kimball. This budget--I have every faith this budget
will not do what many may fear. But what this budget will do
will cause us to have to focus our energies on some different
things, like what we're doing with travel management planning,
and we're doing quite a bit of that in Montana, with being able
to identify trails, trail systems, working very collaboratively
with public groups to be able to identify where uses can be
combined and where uses may need to be separate, and hopefully
to gain a lot of public support in that process.
We are also going through a recreation facilities master
planning and you and I had a brief moment to talk about that in
the hallway. With recreation facilities master planning, first
what we've done is taken an inventory of the facilities we
have. We are also taking note of the different demands being
made on the National Forests--four different recreation
facilities in the public involvement process that we're taking
on with all of those forests. The nine forests' representatives
in Montana will be visiting with different user groups, with
the communities, and talking about opportunities for partnering
on some of those different facilities. But there is no intent
to close access to the National Forests.
Senator Tester. Do you anticipate there will be a closing?
I know there is no intent but we're talking about a $29 million
reduction, and I hear you talking about consolidation. I think
that's good--efficiency is great. Do you anticipate there will
be any closing of campsites or any diminishment of people being
allowed access?
Ms. Kimball. I do not expect any diminishment of people
being allowed access. I do expect we will close very
inefficient campgrounds in some places that get very low
visitation. I expect that the thinking will be increasing the
size of some campgrounds where there is greater demand and
higher visitation.
Senator Tester. What kind of numbers of potential
campground closings are you talking about? How many?
Ms. Kimball. We have not yet begun the public involvement
process, or that is just starting now, so I can't give you any
numbers for campground closure.
Senator Tester. OK, thank you. I want to jump to another
one very quickly. It deals with invasive species--noxious
weeds, leafy spurge--all those bad weeds out there that tend to
take over all lands, public and private. I see that there is a
reduction of a couple different line items, potentially a lot
of money--$20 million. By the way, I understand reductions. I
mean, when you're talking about a $8.6 trillion debt in this
country and $2 billion a week going out for a war in Iraq, I
understand the pressure you guys are under.
So I applaud that. But we've got resources here in this
country. Invasive weeds are taking over our forests. I see a
reduction here. Can you tell me how you can do more with less?
Because there is more demand now than there was 10 years ago, a
lot more than there was 20 years ago.
Mr. Rey. I think that invasives--that's one of the areas
where you're seeing a substantial increased commitment in our
farm bill proposal. In the conservation and forestry title of
the farm bill, we fund a substantial amount of invasives
reduction work through the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program. We're proposing to increase that program by about $420
million a year over the authorized 10-year life of the farm
bill proposal, and that money will be available to private as
well as Federal landowners for invasives control.
Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman, are we dealing with two
budgets here? Is this the Forest Service budget? Or is there
another budget for the Forest Service besides this one?
Mr. Rey. I think what I said a little--right after my
introductory remarks is that in the 2008 cycle, all of our USDA
agency budgets were developed in conjunction with our farm bill
proposal because many USDA agencies--in fact, most of them,
enjoy both discretionary appropriations dollars in the annual
appropriations as well as support for mandatory program dollars
in the farm bill. So what we tried to do in some cases is
balance our priorities to achieve the most efficient way to
deliver programs.
Senator Tester. Is it possible to get how much money the
Forest Service spent last year on invasive species, what the
successes were and how much money you're going to spend this
year, with the farm program?
Mr. Rey. Sure. I would add that the increment of farm
bill----
Senator Tester. Yes, I'd like that, because I need to
compare apples with apples. I'm kind of new to this process and
need to know if there is other stuff going on. The last thing
is--I'm out of time, but I just want to make a comment. You
guys don't have to answer it.
This budget is a bit confusing anyway but I'll take the
blame for that. But there are issues in here that deal with
fire suppression that were split up within this budget. Quite
frankly, we didn't get any sort of idea of what's going on here
until about a half hour ago, 20 minutes before this meeting
started, because when I started firing questions, my guy who
knows a lot more about this than I do, couldn't answer the
questions because there was not a response. I would hope that
in future meetings, we get information a lot quicker than this,
because I can't ask good questions if I don't have good
information. Thank you.
Mr. Rey. We'll endeavor to do that and we'd be happy to
come up and visit with you to sort of go through this stuff.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to all
of you on the panel. The Forest Service is a great addition to
Wyoming and we're very involved. Chief, according to our papers
here, it looks like a reduction of 2,100 and 27 equivalent
staff positions. How do you deal with that?
Ms. Kimball. Well, the budget does reflect a reduction in
full time equivalencies. There are a number of different ways
that we'll be addressing that. We haven't started into a
comprehensive process of that yet, beyond what we're doing with
the Washington office and regional office restructuring, where
we're looking at reducing the costs of those two levels of the
organization by 25 percent by the end of fiscal year 2009. So
we've----
Senator Thomas. How many would that be, roughly?
Ms. Kimball. We don't know that yet. There are currently
about 3,000 positions that serve at the Washington Office and
regional office levels in the agency, so we'd be looking at a
25 percent reduction in cost, not necessarily in positions. At
the same time, every region and every station has been
examining costs, out-year programs and potential efficiencies
and the different ways of doing business. Every region, every
research station has been identifying new organizations as
they've worked through that, taking advantage of new
technologies. So there is not a specific plan in place to
arrive at exactly that number but certainly as things become
more solid----
Senator Thomas. How many are there in total employees in
the Department?
Ms. Kimball. There are approximately 35,000 employees who
work for the U.S. Forest Service.
Senator Thomas. So you've had 2,000 extras.
Ms. Kimball. No. Certainly we've not. The public has much
greater demands for those 35,000 people, and I think every
district ranger in the system would tell me that they could use
more.
Senator Thomas. I suppose. Mark, I want to follow up a
little bit. You indicate that you can sell land for three times
as much as you buy it for. I don't quite understand that.
Mr. Rey. The lands that we sell are generally isolated,
smaller tracts with higher development value. So the per acre
value of those lands has been historically higher than the
lands we acquire. The lands we acquire tend to be more remote,
sometimes larger tracts with higher ecological values, which is
why we want them, but oftentimes, complications are associated
with whether they could ever be developed for a higher use. So
if you appraise those lands--and our exchanges are always
value-for-value exchanges--when you appraise those lands, the
lands that we have been conveying--trading out of--have been,
on the average, on an acre basis, three times more valuable
than the lands we've been acquiring for subsequent development
purposes.
Senator Thomas. Chief, do you think you're going to have
adequate funding to monitor the recovery and de-listing of
endangered species, such as grizzly bears and wolves, which
have taken years and years to de-list?
Ms. Kimball. Well, there are multi-agency responsibilities,
and certainly we work closely with the States and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. There will be some challenges in
combining all those budgets and all those efforts to provide
that kind of monitoring, but we're talking about those things
right now.
Senator Thomas. Are you inclined to want to seek to be able
to do it more quickly than you have in the past?
Ms. Kimball. On a budget kind of basis?
Senator Thomas. Well, I'm talking about the end result. The
budget may have something to do with it.
Mr. Rey. I don't think the process or the progress toward
de-listing species has been budget restricted. I think the
process has been lengthened by the need to convince anybody
that wants to challenge a de-listing decision and subsequently
convince the courts in the aftermath of that challenge that the
de-listing decision was justified.
Senator Thomas. Well, we need to find some ways. I don't
think the courts have held it up much on grizzlies but it's
gone on for years and years. Wolves are a little different
matter.
Secretary, it's a little hard for some of us to accept the
idea that $70 million will fully fund the Northwest Plan, while
at the same time funds are out for all the rest of the plans.
How do you justify that?
Mr. Rey. Well, what we propose in the 2008 budget is to
keep most of the other regions level, in some cases increasing
slightly. Now, we won't know the final result of that until we
actually start the allocation process after the Interior
appropriations bill passes. But there is no intent to penalize
some other region in the interest of fully funding the
Northwest Forest.
Senator Thomas. Well, I hope that's the case, but when your
overall budget is down and you increase one area by $70
million, it's a little hard to understand that you're not going
to have to take it away from somewhere else.
Mr. Rey. Well, in this case, we may have taken it away from
other priorities, but not other regions in this particular
account.
Senator Thomas. Well, we'll be staying with you on that.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chief Kimball,
let me join in welcoming you as well. It's great to see more
trailblazing in the western part of the country. Secretary Rey,
let me start with you and a question about where we are with
respect to forestry policy, generally; that's where I'd like to
start. I've been involved in the only two major forestry bills
that have been enacted in the last 20 years--the County Payment
legislation and the Forest Health legislation--and both of them
were intensely bipartisan efforts. I'd like to continue that.
Now, bipartisanship pretty much blew up last session in terms
of the Secure Rural Schools on the land sales effort. We
couldn't get a single Republican Senator to say they were going
to put any effort into it and obviously today, we're not
exactly seeing Republican U.S. Senators tripping over
themselves to come out for this year's version of the land
sales proposal as well. So I'd like to get bipartisanship back
on track here and I know what I do when I want to get something
bipartisan done. I go over to the other side of the aisle and I
say, ``What do you need? And here's what I'm interested in,''
and we go back and forth. I mean, what is your sense of how the
administration wants to try to get bipartisanship back on track
in the forestry area?
Mr. Rey. Well, in regard to this particular issue, we've
worked with staff on both sides of the aisle over the course of
last year, to evaluate the opportunity to look at other offsets
to fund this re-authorization. Unfortunately, that search was
unsuccessful, but it has been our willingness to continue to do
that. We stated when we made our proposal last year that we
were willing to work with Members of Congress on both sides of
the aisle to look at options for funding this.
I think we've redeemed that commitment in the discussions
that we had during the course of the year. I think your staff
would probably validate that and that's a commitment that still
exists today. It's a commitment that is reflected in how we've
modified the proposal. If somebody wants to say that they are
philosophically opposed to selling Federal land and that that's
a dead letter and it can never happen, I guess my observation
is: No. 1, then you're essentially opposing what has been
happening on a fairly routine basis for the last 60 or so
years, because we do trade land. We do buy land. We do sell
land. We continually adjust the Federal estate to get the best
lands that have national environmental significance into
Federal protection and we continually convey lands.
Senator Reid had a bill last session that conveyed public
land out of public ownership as part of an overall conservation
package. So I mean, I think the first thing I'd say, if you are
philosophically opposed to that, that it's just
incomprehensible that you'd even contemplate such a proposal,
that's sort of running contrary to what the history of this has
been. The second thing I guess I'd say is, OK. I can accept
that. People have strong philosophical positions on a lot of
things. So then if that's your philosophy, you probably would
have some alternatives, and if there are alternatives, we're
happy to look at them. We haven't rejected any alternatives. We
didn't reject the alternative that U.S. Senator Baucus put
forward. Unfortunately, the Congress didn't adopt it.
Senator Wyden. We were waiting, of course, for some comment
from the administration that it would be supported, and it
clearly was a good idea because the administration used the
money for tax cuts. So we did put off the alternatives and
we'll continue to try to find bipartisan common ground. I think
we'll see again, that Republicans are not going to embrace your
land sales proposal and I hope that you'll be interested in
looking at other approaches.
Chief Kimball, let me ask you one question, since you're
getting started and obviously you are thrown into the debate
immediately. We have a pretty serious difference of opinion
with respect to funding the forest health legislation. We felt
very strongly that it was very important to get $760 million
because we wanted to do prevention, and the whole point of the
effort was to try to get serious in the prevention area, so you
wouldn't just be dealing with these conflagrations down the
road.
The administration consistently sends up proposals that are
about a half or less of what we had agreed, in our bipartisan
basis, was needed. Now, each time I go through this math, I end
up more baffled as to how the administration adds up the
numbers. But since you're the new Chief, I want to give you a
chance in my first discussion with you, to tell me how your
numbers add up to the $760 million a year commitment on forest
health, and I'd like to hear your answer to how those numbers
add up to $760 million.
Ms. Kimball. Well, in fact, when you add up the Department
of Interior and the Forest Service efforts together for healthy
forests, the total that appeared in the 2007 budget was just
over $900 million. I'd be happy to sit down with you and go
over those numbers.
Senator Wyden. Why don't you do it now? Go ahead. Let's do
it now.
Ms. Kimball. You're sure?
Senator Wyden. Please.
Ms. Kimball. These numbers are--it's a long list.
Senator Wyden. Why don't you just give me how it gets to
$760 million.
Ms. Kimball. Department of the Interior was $302 million
and the Forest Service was $610 million for a total of $912
million and last year, there were 4 million acres treated, a
combination of Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest
Service. This year, we anticipate 4.3 million to be treated in
2007, and then 4.4 million in 2008.
Senator Wyden. That's not what we hear on the ground and
what we hear from the various national forests. This is your
first appearance, and I think it is only appropriate for you to
have a chance to review your math, but I can tell you, out in
the field, people don't see those dollars.
Ms. Kimball. Well, having just come in from the field, I
think there are a lot of efforts going on across the country. I
know specifically in the Northern Region, we are working very
hard on a strategy for treating forests for more resilient,
healthier forests and we were looking at leveraging dollars
amongst the different budget line items, and in the different
programs so that our timber program, wildlife habitat
manipulation, hazardous fuel reduction programs, and watershed
treatment programs all worked in concert to not only complete
the specified objectives that come with those different dollars
but also to accomplish hazardous fuel reduction. So I think
there is a tremendous effort in the field to leverage dollars
and to use dollars more effectively, more efficiently.
Mr. Rey. In the interests of bipartisanship, Senator Wyden,
I think you're sort of selling your accomplishments short. I
think both of the pieces of the legislation that you had a role
in co-authoring have been successes by any measure. The Secure
Rural Schools legislation provided a substantial amount of
funding to counties to help make the transition to a more
diversified economy, and many of them in your State have. Many
of them haven't. Those are the ones we have to work together to
see if we can help in the next iteration of this legislation.
The Resource Advisory Committees that that legislation
authorized have been a stunning success. The Healthy Forest
Restoration Act has resulted in the treatment, over the last 5
years--by the end of this year, close to 25 million acres of
at-risk Federal lands, four times more acres on the average
than we were treating in the 1990's, an area the size of the
State of Ohio.
So I think the fact that you invested time in developing
those bipartisan solutions is reflected in the fact that both
of those statutes have been successful.
Senator Wyden. My time is up. I just note the profound
difference between those pieces of legislation and what we're
dealing with now. With Secure Rural Schools, there is a
widespread Republican support. Now with respect to selling off
lands, there has not been a single Republican United States
Senator willing to embrace that proposal. That's the
difference. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I regard it
as an awesome responsibility to be representing solely the
entire eastern part of the United States of America. But I'll
take on that responsibility, and I don't want to embarrass my
western friends, so we won't mention where next year's capital
Christmas tree is coming from. We won't tell them.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Kimball. It's from a very special National Forest.
Senator Sanders. Thank you both for being here. My
questions deal with the Green Mountain National Forest. As both
of you know, last year, the Green Mountain National Forest
adopted a new forest plan and I want to compliment the work
done by the staff. You guys did a very, very good job and we
enjoyed working with you. There was a whole lot of public
participation in it, and while there was difference of opinion,
I think it ended up working out well.
Bottom line though, is that any plan is only as good as its
implementation. For more than 10 years, the harvest rate at the
Green Mountain National Forest has been at less than 10 percent
of the allowable sale quantity, causing a great concern for our
resource- dependent rural communities. The curtailing of the
timber harvest has much to do with the shortage of staffing
capacity in the Forest Service to administer the Timber
Program. It also involves the larger issue of fully funding the
Forest Management Plan.
So my question to you is: how are we going to address that
very serious economic problem in Vermont? How are we going to
raise the level of timber harvesting above 10 percent? Chief
Kimball?
Ms. Kimball. And I have to admit, I don't have very
detailed information about the Timber Program on the Green
Mountain National Forest, despite the fact that I'm also a
Vermonter. But I will work on getting on that information and
I'd be happy to visit with you.
Senator Sanders. Yeah, I would look forward to having----
Mr. Rey. If I could just add----
Senator Sanders. Yeah.
Mr. Rey. One of the problems that the Green Mountain
experienced in the late 1990's and the early part of this
decade, very similar to a number of the other Eastern National
Forests, is we had litigation over the protection of the
Indiana bat, a threatened or endangered species.
Senator Sanders. I'd like to go to my second question.
Thank you. The second question is again very specific and you
may not have the answer in front of you but I would like to
talk to you about it in the office. There is an acquisition
backlog at the Green Mountain National Forest; an additional $1
million was programmed to help address acquisition priorities
in the fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill, but
unfortunately it was not included in the continuing resolution.
I want to bring to your attention a very important land
conservation project in the Green Mountain National Forest that
depends upon this final $1 million--not a lot of money. In
order to be completed, the landowner has been very patient over
several years while funding was sought. Can I count on the
Forest Service to fund the land acquisition account in fiscal
year 2007 and in particular, allocate $1 million to the Green
Mountain National Forest for the completion of the Broad Brook
property? The Broad Brook property is what we're talking about.
Additionally, will you work within the proposed budget to
ensure that high priority acquisitions within the Green
Mountain National Forest, such as the Broad Brook property, are
completed in fiscal year 2008? Do you have any information on
that, Chief?
Ms. Kimball. We're just looking through that now. Give me a
moment, please. Apparently there has been a tremendous amount
of work done to date, but I need to understand more about the
current situation on those two specific items.
Senator Sanders. Okay. Congratulations, by the way, on your
appointment.
Ms. Kimball. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sanders. We'll give you a ring and if you can come
in, we'll bring some people in that know more than I do about
it, and we can see how we can go forward, okay?
Ms. Kimball. Right. Thank you.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank all the
witnesses for being here. I think it has been a useful hearing.
We will adjourn and have another hearing later on. Thanks.
Ms. Kimball. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of the Department of Agriculture to Questions From
Senator Bingaman
Question 1. When Chief Bosworth retired he was quoted as advising
Forest Service staff that that ``the biggest challenge will be the
effect of climate change on the natural resources in our care.'' Do you
agree that climate change presents the biggest challenge to the Forest
Service? If not, what do you think is the biggest challenge?
Answer. We agree that effects of climate change will increasingly
be a great challenge to our natural resources. Even now, the moderate
climate change measured to date, has affected natural resources by
coupling with and acting upon wildfires, insect infestations, and
invasive species in the West, and with insect infestations and air
pollutants in the East and in certain regions such as southern
California. As future climate change increases in amount, it appears it
will increasingly impact natural resources, but always in concert with
these other stresses. It is the interactions among the stresses which
will always be the greatest challenge for managing the natural
resources in our care.
Question 2. In your testimony, you mentioned that the Forest
Service progressed from being ``in receivership, to achieving five
clean audit opinions with enhanced internal controls . . . And accurate
and complete financial data'' under the leadership of Chief Bosworth.
According to the Inspector General, ``Forest Service performance
management remains one of the Department of Agriculture's most serious
management challenges.'' In 2003, the GAO reported that ``the Forest
Service has made little real progress in resolving its long-standing
performance accountability problems and, based on the status of its
current efforts, remains years away from implementing a credible
performance accountability system.''
Will you make improving performance accountability a priority? What
are your plans to address these problems?
Answer. Yes, As stated in Chief Kimbell's testimony on February 28,
2007, under previous Chief Dale Bosworth's leadership, the agency
progressed from being ``in receivership,'' to achieving five
consecutive clean audit opinions from the USDA Office of the Inspector
General (FY 2002-FY 2006). Chief Bosworth reduced overhead costs,
reorganized the Deputy areas by eliminating two Deputy Chief positions
and reducing staff, and guided the agency through the centralization
and reengineering of its business processes--whose net cost reductions
will approach $100 million by fiscal year 2008. The Forest Service's
improved business policies, processes, and organization have enhanced
internal controls, eliminated duplication, and created accurate and
complete financial data.
The agency has made significant progress in resolving performance
accountability issues identified in the 2003 GAO report. The agency has
implemented a Performance and Accountability System that provides
management the means to track budget and performance results at all
levels of the organization. Performance indicators from numerous
electronic systems are now integrated to provide a single system of
record. Effective FY 2007, all employee performance standards are tied
directly to one or more goals and objectives of the agency's strategic
plan. In addition, Senior Executive Service employee performance
standards are tied directly to delivery of agency performance
objectives. Beginning last fiscal year, the agency instituted field
performance accountability reviews, completing 4 in FY 2006 and has 4
scheduled for FY 2007. Finally, the agency is addressing business rules
for accomplishment recording/reporting that have caused many of the
inconsistencies reported by IG and GAO.
Question 3. Do you believe that the relative funding requested by
the President for Wildland Firefighters and Preparedness is the most
efficient level? Do you believe that greater efficiency would result
from moving some funding from the Wildland Firefighters account to the
Preparedness account or vice versa?
Answer. The FY 2008 President's budget request will provide an
efficient level of funds and resources for implementation of the
program put forth in the President's Budget. The agency does not use
the term ``most efficient level'' as it relates funding or staffing.
By establishing the Wildland Firefighters appropriation, the budget
would ensure a stable number of firefighters and supports the Forest
Service transition to a risk-evaluation and informed performance and
accountability system.
Responses of the Department of Agriculture to Questions From Senator
Maria Cantwell
wildland fire budget
Question 4. Mr. Rey, I asked you the following questions at the
January 30, 2007 hearing on wildfire suppression costs and have yet to
hear your response: What specific amount of money was spent on wildland
firefighter training activities nationally in the last fiscal year? Can
you please provide the specific amount of money spent on wildland
firefighter training activities for each of the 10 Forest Service
regions and in Washington state in the last fiscal year? How does these
figures compare to 2001?
Answer. The approximate amount of money spent on wildfire training
during FY 2006 will be similar to the $29.5 million we have spent on
training for each of the past several years. Approximately $7.1 million
is spent in support of Regional and National Suppression and Fire Use
Academies, and Training Centers. The cost for regional and local fire
training is approximately $22.4 million.
The number of Forest Service fire personnel that are in the State
of Washington (FS Region 6 in the table below represents Washington and
Oregon) is 1,760. The annual cost of training Forest Service personnel
in Washington State was approximately $1,310,000 in FY 2006.
APPROXIMATE FY 2006 ALLOCATION OF WILDFIRE TRAINING DOLLARS BY REGION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training
Fire Funding
Region Personnel (Actual
Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 3,529 $2,621,000
2............................................ 2,050 $1,523,000
3............................................ 2,858 $2,128,000
4............................................ 3,149 $2,352,000
5............................................ 6,446 $4,794,000
6............................................ 5,465 $4,077,000
8............................................ 3,760 $2,800,000
9............................................ 2,442 $1,814,000
10........................................... 399 $291,000
--------------------------
Total.................................. 30,100 $22,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures have fluctuated only slightly with the number of new
hires each year, and remain essentially the same since 2001.
Question 5. The indictment of a Washington firefighter for his role
in the deaths of four firefighters from the Thirtymile fire in 2001 may
lead to challenges in retaining and recruiting wildland firefighters.
Can you please describe what efforts the Forest Service is undertaking
to retain and recruit firefighters, particularly for leadership
positions?
Answer. We have a good success rate of filling positions and on an
annual basis receive multiple applicants for the vast majority of our
vacant positions. However, almost all of our leadership positions are
filled by individuals already working for the Forest Service, Interior
agencies or State partners that have wildfire suppression
responsibilities. We have continued vigorous support for the highly
successful development and delivery of a leadership curriculum that is
required at a variety of stages as individuals progress upward within
the incident response organization.
Question 6. The FY08 budget notes that the Forest Service will
``examine the feasibility and implement as appropriate'' a process to
account for wildfires that contribute to attainment of desired
ecological and natural resource conditions. What is the agency's
timeline for completing these tasks? Will they provide a report to the
Committee on their progress and announce publicly when they have made
these important changes?
Answer. The agency is currently working with its Federal wildland
fire management partners in an attempt to reach agreement on modifying
the current Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy to allow
accomplishment and reporting of fuel reductions during wildfire
suppression activities. Currently the review and modification of
policies to allow reporting of hazardous fuel reductions that meet
forest plan objectives, regardless of the method under which it was
accomplished, is estimated for completion by spring of 2007. These
discussions are on-going internally and with interagency cooperators.
An exact timeframe is unknown at this time but will occur within FY
2008. We can provide periodic updates that would describe current
actions.
Question 7. The FY08 budget introduces a new line item, a Wildland
Firefighter appropriation. The budget notes that establishing this
single account for professional wildland firefighters will ``enhance
performance, improve accountability, and provide greater efficiency in
managing wildland fires.'' Please explain in more detail how this new
account will achieve these goals.
Answer. The Wildland Firefighter account will help stabilize the
number of firefighters by reducing funding uncertainties from year to
year. This will result in less personnel turnover providing for
enhanced firefighter skills through experience and long term training.
This stable and skilled workforce will ensure a more professional and
efficient workforce and program.
Question 8. The FY08 budget continues a downward trend in funding
for community fire protection programs. Critical programs such as State
and Volunteer Fire Assistance put scarce dollars where they are needed
most ``in and around communities'' but under the President's Budget
these programs continue to struggle to simply keep up with inflation.
This budget proposes they be reduced to $85.1 million, an 8 percent cut
from the FY2006 level of $92.4 million. While this represents a needed
increase from the Administration's drastic 25 percent cuts in the
FY2007 Budget proposal, these programs were woefully underfunded to
begin with and these proposed reductions still mean a continued decline
in community fire assistance funds that are critical to at-risk
communities. How will the Forest Service ensure effective partnerships
with at-risk communities when community assistance funding is
underfunded and continues to decline?
Answer. In the State and Private Forestry appropriation, the
program is up over $3 million. In the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation, when the earmarks are eliminated, the decrease is
slight.
The Administration's budget proposal for State and local fire
assistance is formulated to balance different areas of necessary
Wildland Fire Management work, and is based on the priority of
Cooperative Fire Protection among all discretionary programs in
government.
We value these partnerships and will continue to work with the
States to assist them in carrying out their programs with the potential
for a reduced budget.
Question 9. A critical community capacity-building program, the
Economic Action Program, has again been eliminated in the FY08 budget
proposal. EAP helps ensure that forest-dependent communities can be
full partners with the federal government in restoring forest
ecosystems through grants and technical assistance to build
restoration-based businesses, develop and implement collaborative
planning and monitoring, and leverage private sector dollars. How does
the Forest Service intend to fulfill these goals without EAP?
Answer. The agency encourages Forest Service employees to provide
technical assistance to rural communities when requested regardless of
the budget the account they might be paid from. State and Private
Forestry Cooperative Fire Protection and Forest Health Management
programs will be able to provide financial assistance to rural
communities through the State Foresters.
hfi implementation
Question 10a. Difficulties in prioritizing hazardous fuels projects
continue to be a problem. The USDA IG recently reported that the Forest
Service lacks an adequate prioritization system to ensure that the most
important fuel reduction projects are funded first. This conclusion
echoes past findings by the OIG and GAO. The Healthy Forests
Restoration Act (HFRA) requires that federal land management agencies
consider the priorities of local communities, as expressed in a CWPP,
as they develop and implement forest management and hazardous fuel
reduction projects. However, it is unclear how well priorities
identified in CWPPs are being incorporated into federal fuel reduction
projects and funding for hazardous fuels reduction continues to rise
(it is increased by about 4% over FY06 in this year's budget). This
raises a number of questions.
What will the Forest Service do to rectify this on-going problem
prioritizing hazardous fuels projects? How will they ensure they are
prioritizing using proven practices to protect high-risk communities?
Answer. The LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment has produced maps and models
of potential natural vegetation groups, reference fire regimes, and
fire regime condition class for the conterminous United States. The
LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment data can be used for national- to regional-
scale strategic planning, broad ecological assessments, and resource
allocation. More locally, the highest priority areas for fuel
treatments continue to be those wildland urban interface zones adjacent
to communities where partnerships between the agency, State, and local
government and community stakeholders are strong and hazardous fuels
mitigation efforts will successfully mitigate the effects of wildfire.
The Forest Service initiated a new prioritization process for FY
2007. The Forest Service and DOI are currently working to develop a
common approach for the prioritization of hazardous fuels mitigation
projects for FY 2008 allocation decisions. The current system relies on
nationally-consistent, scientifically-credible, geospatially-referenced
data to help rank Forest Service Regions according to priority.
Prioritization factors currently included in the system are: wildfire
potential, wildland-urban interface acres, timber values at risk,
municipal watersheds, overall ecosystem vulnerability, program
efficiency and effectiveness, and restoration opportunities.
Most importantly, this system is a decision support model and does
not replace management discretion. The system is currently designed to
evaluate Regions for prioritization and is being modified to provide
the same analysis capabilities to assist Regions in prioritizing fuels
treatments. Individual project selection will continue to be at the
discretion of local line officers in coordination with other Federal,
State, and local agencies with particular emphasis on projects
associated with Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
Question 10b. The Forest Service continues to use ``acres treated''
as a measure of success in hazardous fuels treatment. This is
problematic because not all acres are ``equal'', i.e. the agency treats
``easy'' acres first. Also, this is not a measure of risk reduced. The
agency attempts to quantify risk by using condition class, another
measure with known flaws. Condition class measures only show current
vegetation differs from historical vegetation, it says nothing about
how those differences affect fire behavior or risk. Why does the agency
continue to use these measures when they do not provide the information
needed to measure success?
Answer. We are continuing to develop and implement analysis tools
for landscape design to maximize the effectiveness of fuels treatments
while meeting a variety of integrated resource objectives to restore
healthy forests. The agency's annual fuel treatment program is a mix of
projects that not only reduce wildfire risk to communities, but also
protect, restore, and maintain forest and grasslands. The costs
associated with these treatments vary and it is not correct to assume
we treat the easiest acre first. The information associated with
condition class is relevant for vegetative conditions and is based on
the best available data and technology. Through adoption of the
December 2006 update to the 10 Year Strategy Implementation Plan, the
agency has adopted new performance measures that incorporate outcome
goals. Improvements in quantifying risk through condition class and
other means will occur as the effects of fuels and vegetation
treatments are calibrated and validated by field practitioners and will
improve our capability to define success through these new measures.
post-fire response priorities
Question 11a. Proactive community fire protection work is often
pushed aside when a wildfire burns in the National Forest System. All
available staff and financial resources typically are shifted to
fighting the fire itself, the recovery efforts after the fire, and the
subsequent post-fire ``salvage'' harvests to follow. As a result,
planning and implementation of fuels reduction projects that protect
communities are delayed for months or years, our National Forest System
has a growing backlog of such projects, and communities are at higher
risk for future wildfire, thus perpetuating the problem.
How many community fire protection projects and associated acres
have been postponed in order to facilitate salvage harvests over the
past 6 years? (SPF)
Answer. While the agency does not collect or maintain data specific
to this question generally the resources, skills and funding needed to
prepare and administer salvage sales are not the same set as those
needed to conduct non-salvage related fuel hazard reduction projects.
The two activities do not compete with each other. Decisions to pursue
salvage opportunities are at the discretion of local line officers and
every attempt is made to prioritize and achieve hazardous fuel and
restoration objectives through salvage sale activities.
Question 11b. How many of these project areas subsequently burned
before they could be treated? (SPF)
Answer. This information is not available at the national level.
The agency is working to map planned hazardous fuel reduction
treatments, but the priority remains on developing a national map of
completed treatments. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey has
recently completed improvements to their burn severity mapping program.
Question 11c. How much money was lost or gained by the Forest
Service in these related salvage efforts? (NFS)
Answer. The agency does not maintain cost or revenue records
specific to salvage sales that are undertaken in lieu of community
protection or fuel hazard reduction projects. Nor does the agency
collect data regarding salvage sales located in areas where fuel hazard
reduction projects were planned--but did not occur prior to an
occurrence of wildfire.
Question 11d. How can the Forest Service create a dedicated funding
source to maintain proactive green projects in order to reduce long-
term community fire risks? (SPF)
Answer. Specific Forest Service budget line items in the National
Forest System and Wildland Fire Management appropriations are used to
carry-out projects that reduce hazardous fuels and improve community
protection from wildland fire. However, current authorities allow the
agency to transfer any funds available to the Forest Service for fire
fighting, emergency rehabilitation, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions when previously appropriated wildfire suppression
funds have been exhausted. The Forest Service is committed to reducing
hazardous fuel in areas that can provide for improved community
protection from wildland fire. The FY 2008 President's Budget estimates
over 75 percent of the total hazardous fuel reduction program will be
used for wildland-urban interface activities. In addition the use of
stewardship contracting to enhance community protection is being
emphasized.
northwest forest plan
Question 12. The Northwest Forest Plan is a multi-agency,
scientifically credible, based plan which has provided a blueprint to
federal agencies for how to manage the public lands in western
Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Current Administration
efforts, especially the current direction for revising the BLM resource
management plans and current directions for maintaining critical
habitat designations are likely to undermine the scientific and legal
foundation for the Plan. Currently, much of the responsibility for
providing wildlife and salmon habitat and protection of the ancient
forest ecosystem rests on federal lands.
If the scientific framework and credibility of the Northwest Forest
Plan is weakened by reducing protections as currently allowed by the
Northwest Forest Plan, what type of impact might that have on privately
owned forests? Specifically, how would undercutting the scientific
assumptions (substantial federal land protection) built into Habitat
Conservation Plans impact private forest land and State managed forest
land management?
Answer. The Forest Service has no proposals to modify the
protections incorporated into these plans. The question as framed could
best be addressed by the Bureau of Land Management. Habitat
Conservation Plans are prepared by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to
address how private landowners conserve listed species. This question
should be addressed by that agency.
recreation
Question 13a. The Forest Service is currently conducting a review
of its recreation facilities and has begun advocating for shutting down
campsites and closing cabins due to funding shortfalls. Recreation is
the largest use of the National Forest System, and further increasing
with loss of open space and increasing population. However, the
proposed budget for FY08 included $27.4 million decrease in
appropriations from FY06.
How many recreational facilities is the Forest Service estimating
closing?
Answer. The Forest Service has not identified specific site
closures that will be affected by the FY 2008 budget reduction. The
agency is currently undergoing a review of its recreation facilities
through the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RS-FMP) process.
RS-FMP will result in a higher quality, more efficiently managed
developed recreation program where the facilities reflect visitor
desires and use. Funding levels are not the only factor of this
analysis. Many factors are considered in evaluating each developed
recreation site and through RS-FMP national forests examine their
recreation facilities and evaluate how they might operate and maintain
existing structures at desired quality standards. Involvement of the
local public, surrounding communities and each national forest's
recreation visitors is a critical and essential component of the RS-FMP
process.
Question 13b. How is the Forest Service going to address the
recreation shortfalls?
Answer. The proposed reduction in funds may result in shortened
seasons at some developed and dispersed recreation sites; reduced hours
for visitor information services with minimal staffing at some sites;
processing new special use permit applications would be limited;
restoration and adaptive reuse of heritage properties for
interpretation, recreation, and tourism will occur at reduced levels;
and a limited number of wilderness rangers will be available to provide
visitor information and education. However, recreation resources will
continue to be directed towards efforts that maximize program delivery,
including strengthening partnerships which are vital to accomplishing
stewardship work on the ground. Facility master planning also helps
each national forest align their developed recreation sites with the
unique characteristics of the forest, projected recreation demand,
visitor expectations, and revenue.
roadless areas
Question 14. Mr. Rey, the Bush Administration has spent six years
trying to overturn the 2001 Clinton Administration Roadless Rule. As
you know, the most recent legal ruling in this costly legal saga has
been to reinstate the 2001 Rule. Will the Bush Administration finally
end its divisive efforts to overturn this broadly popular Rule? Is the
Forest Service planning on taking any further action on the state
petitions it has received to date? Please update me on the state of the
Forest Service's road maintenance backlog, including an estimation of
its overall cost and an explanation of how these figures were derived.
How has the Forest Service's road maintenance backlog changed from 2001
until today?
Answer. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) called for
protection through prohibitions on timber harvesting and road
construction and reconstruction on approximately 58.5 million acres, or
roughly one-third, of all National Forest System (NFS) lands. Ten
lawsuits have been filed against RACR. While the RACR was in and out of
effect by court ruling, the Forest Service issued interim directives
for the continued protection of roadless areas. The last of these
interim directives will expire on July 16, 2007. In the court case
Alaska v. USDA, the Government negotiated a settlement with the State
of Alaska which led to an amendment to the RACR. This amendment exempts
approximately 9.3 million roadless area acres on the Tongass National
Forest from the rule. Therefore, approximately 47.2 million acres of
NFS lands are currently being protected under the RACR.
The RACR was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Wyoming on July 14, 2003. An appeal on this ruling was made moot by
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals because the Government issued a new
rule for roadless area protection on May 13, 2005. This new rule, the
State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management (State
Petitions Rule), allowed governors to petition the Secretary of
Agriculture to promulgate regulations for establishing management
requirements for all or any portion of NFS inventoried roadless areas
within that State or territory. The Secretary received petitions from
California, Idaho, New Mexico, North and South Carolina, and Virginia.
On September 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California enjoined the State Petitions Rule and reinstated
the RACR with the Alaska exemption. All Department and Forest Service
activities are in compliance with this ruling. In response, the State
of Wyoming, on September 22, 2006, filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Wyoming which basically requests
another injunction on the RACR. A hearing on this motion is scheduled
for April 18, 2007. Additionally, on April 5, 2007, the Government
appealed the District Court decision on the State Petitions Rule to the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Subsequent to the injunction on the State Petitions Rule, the
administration informed those States that had previously filed under
the rule, that they could file a similar petition under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) and Department
of Agriculture regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. The States of California, New
Mexico, North and South Carolina, and Virginia have not filled a
petition under the APA. Therefore, the Forest Service has taken no
further actions with these States on their petitions.
Idaho Governor James Risch on October 5, 2006, resubmitted his
petition under the APA. The Forest Service signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the State and is currently working with the
State of Idaho on a State-specific rule. The rulemaking is based upon
the submitted petition with clarifications made by Governor Risch
during his November 29, 2006 presentation to the Roadless Area
Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC). A proposed rule and
supporting draft environmental impact statement are expected later this
year for public review and comment. Current Idaho Governor C.L.
``Butch'' Otter supports the petition.
Colorado Governor Bill Owens, on November 13, 2006, also submitted
a petition under the APA. At the request of Governor Bill Ritter, the
administration has waited for his approval before proceeding with the
RACNAC's and Department's review of the petition. On April 11, 2007,
Governor Ritter informed Under Secretary Mark Rey that he was willing
to go forward with the petition submitted by Governor Owens with
amendments. However before going forward, he requested interim
protections for the identified roadless areas and Colorado's right to
withdraw its petition if the rulemaking is unacceptable to the State.
If the State of Colorado continues with its petition and it is accepted
by the Secretary, the Forest Service will sign an MOU with the State of
Colorado and work on a State-specific rule based on the Colorado
petition.
The Forest Service continues to believe that the best approach for
finding the appropriate level of protection of these important lands is
through State Governors petitioning through the Administrative
Procedure Act process, or by the State Petitions Rule if it is
reinstated by the courts. This is the policy we are currently
following.
Responses of the Department of Agriculture to Questions From
Senator Sanders
Question 15. The Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) has taken a
leading role in restoration of the Battenkill River in Vermont and New
York for many years, with funds directly appropriated for that purpose.
The Battenkill work has involved many partners and has been a great
outreach opportunity for the Forest Service in southern Vermont. What
is the intention and capacity of the Forest Service to continue this
important work?
Answer. The FY 2008 President's Budget does not include the earmark
provided in FY 2006. The FY 2008 President's Budget relative to the FY
2007 enacted budget, decreases the wildlife and fisheries habitat
management budget by -$10.9 million (-9%).
This program level will provide funds for high priority treatments;
however, unit specific allocations have not been determined at this
time.
Question 16. Bromely Ski area in Vermont has proposed a land
exchange with the Forest Service. The main trail groups and other
interested parties in Vermont are supportive but the proposal has not
moved forward, pending legislation affecting the disposition of
proceeds from the project. Meanwhile, there has been no progress on the
lengthy review process that would actually get the ball rolling. Will
the U.S. Forest Service commence the environmental review of this
project as soon as possible, understanding that completion of the
transfer may require legislation?
Answer. The Forest Service is ready to move ahead with the
exchange. However while the Federal land has been identified at Bromley
Ski Area, the non-Federal land to balance the exchange has yet to be
identified. Without a compliment of private lands to balance the loss
of Federal land at Bromley Ski Area, the Forest Service cannot move
forward with the environmental analysis. The agency is currently
working with citizen groups, the trail community and community leaders
to gather support and identify privately held parcels that would meet
both community needs as well as environmental concerns.
Question 17. The New England Wilderness Act of 2006 established the
Moosalamoo National Recreation Area (NRA). There are more than 70 miles
of trails within the NRA in need of work, and many more trails
throughout the GMNF. Will there be sufficient resources to get the new
NRA in good shape quickly without draining resources from other
important trails work in GMNF?
Answer. The trail mileage in the Moosalamoo National Recreation
Area (NRA) represents less than 10 percent of the total trail mileage
on the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest. Though the
Forest Service is very supportive of the Moosalamoo area, diverting
limited trail funding to the Moosalamoo NRA can only be achieved by
reducing funds needed for the remainder of the Forest. Outside the
Moosalamoo NRA is significant trail mileage on the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail, the North Country National Scenic Trail (located in New
York State) and the White Rocks National Recreation Area that are also
in need of additional trail funding.
Question 18. The August 18, 2006 issue of Science, one of the most
prestigious scientific journals, included a piece written by scientists
from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and from the U.S.
Geological Survey, titled ``Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western
U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity.'' I am sure you have read it. To quote
one of the authors of the paper, ``The increase in large wildfires
appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate
warming.'' Given that fire-related costs are taking up an increasing
amount of the Forest Service budget, with the Administration having
proposed that 45 percent of the FY 2008 budget be for this purpose,
what direction has the Administration issued regarding the need to
address climate change in land and resource management plans?
Answer. To date, we have issued no specific direction on the need
to address climate change in land management plans. The agency has
initiated several studies on this topic and is considering available
options. One of these options is associated with the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) (http://www.climatescience.gov/), of
which the Department of Agriculture is a partner. The CCSP creates
Synthesis and Assessment Products (SAP), which respond to the CCSP
highest priority research, observation, and decision support needs.
Currently under draft is SAP 4.4, titled, ``Preliminary Review of
Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources.''
One chapter of SAP 4.4 focuses on the national forests. Other chapters
include National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Estuary
Program, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Marine Protected Areas. For the
national forests chapter, management options are reviewed for adapting
to climate change on national forests. Also, the characteristics of
ecosystems and adaptation responses are identified that would help
promote successful strategic guidance in land management plans.
Responses of the Department of Agriculture to Questions From
Senator Wyden
healthy forests
Question 19. As discussed in the hearing, please identify each
account that contains the fuels treatment spending as authorized under
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the amount of funding requested
in that account.
Answer. The agency cannot provide specific fuels treatment funding
as FY 2008 projects have not been finalized as of this time. The FY
2008 President's budget for the Healthy Forests Initiative includes
hazardous fuels project funding requested in FY 2008 as well as other
supporting funding as follows:
FY 2008 HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE--FOREST SERVICE
[Dollars Amounts in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008
Program Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research................................................... $28,000
State & Private Forestry:
Forest Health Management............................... $15,000
State Fire Assistance.................................. $27,500
National Forest System:
Forest Products........................................ $78,691
Vegetation & Watershed................................. $65,524
Wildlife & Fish........................................ $15,295
Stewardship Contracting \1\............................ $71,000
Wildland Fire Management:
Hazardous Fuels \2\.................................... $291,583
National Fire Plan R&D................................. $13,000
Joint Fire Sciences.................................... $4,000
------------
Forest Service Total Funding......................... $609,593
------------
Acres treated for Hazardous Fuels Reduction:
Forest Service--Hazardous Fuels Funds:
Acres Treated Inside WUI........................... 1,500
Acres Treated Outside WUI.......................... 300
Accomplish With Other Funds \2\.................... 1,150
------------
FS Total Acres Treated........................... 2,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accomplishments from large Stewardship Contracts (>100,000 acres)
are reported in the year in which task orders are issued for the work,
rather than the entire scope of the contract.
\2\ Forest Service FY 2008 targets for Hazardous Fuels Reduction
accomplished with other funds include acres treated as a secondary
benefit to other land management activities, and estimated acres
treated through: Wildland Fire Use events, Hazard Mitigation Grants
awarded under the State Fire Assistance program, and activities of the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.
community assistance programs
Question 20a. The Administration continues to ask for and expect
more of our states and local communities, yet the Administration keeps
cutting the tools to help them be successful partners in forest health,
fire protection and economic development. This year's budget proposes
cuts to State and Volunteer Fire Assistance and zeroes out the Economic
Action Program (EAP)--key programs that provide specifically targeted
funding for forest communities. These proposed reductions mean a
continued decline in community fire assistance funds that are critical
to at-risk communities. How will the Forest Service ensure effective
partnerships with at-risk communities when community assistance funding
is under-funded and continues to decline?
Answer. The Budget recognizes the primacy of State, local, and
volunteer fire departments in wildland fire management on non-Federal
lands. The Forest Service values these partnerships and will continue
to work with the States to assist them in carrying out their programs
with a reduced budget. The Administration's budget proposal for State
and local fire assistance is formulated to balance different areas of
necessary Wildland Fire Management work, and is based on the priority
of Cooperative Fire Protection among all discretionary programs.
The Administration values its role in working with at-risk
communities. Through expanded partnerships with State Foresters,
universities, and other Federal and State agencies, many more entities
are being encouraged to support economic development opportunities in
rural communities. USDA Rural Development has a vast array of community
assistance programs that are available for local business and community
projects. The Forest Service continues to encourage USDA Rural
Development to extend its program and services to meet the growing
demand of local communities.
Question 20b. The EAP program helps ensure that forest-dependent
communities can be full partners with the federal government in
restoring forest ecosystems through grants and technical assistance to
build restoration-based businesses, develop and implement collaborative
planning and monitoring, and leverage private sector dollars. How does
the Forest Service intend to fulfill these goals without EAP?
Answer. The agency encourages Forest Service employees to provide
technical assistance to rural communities when requested regardless of
the budget the account they might be paid from. Specifically, the Wyden
Amendment (Public Law 109-54, Section 434) authorizes the Forest
Service to enter into cooperative agreements to benefit resources
within watersheds on National Forest System lands. Agreements may be
with willing Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments, private and
nonprofit entities, and landowners to conduct activities on public or
private lands for the following purposes:
Protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and
wildlife habitat and other resources,
Reduction of risk for natural disaster where public safety
is threatened, or
A combination of both.
Additionally, State and Private Forestry Cooperative Fire
Protection and Forest Health Management programs will be able to
provide financial assistance to rural communities through the State
Foresters.
Alternative programs exist through USDA Rural Development and State
and Private Forestry for rural community assistance other than Economic
Action.
forest and rangeland research
Question 21a. Funding for research on reducing the risk from
wildlands fires, one of the most critical problems facing the Forest
Service, is being cut 6%. Funding to reduce the impacts of invasive
species, another critical problem, is being cut by 17%. You are
proposing to cut the research staff by 173 FTEs or almost 10%. This is
on top of a cut of the 36 scientists that you are making this year.
Answer. Yes, except that the 36 Scientists are included in the 173
FTEs.
Question 21b. One of the few research programs that have funding
increases is in the energy resources area, but this brings total
funding for this program to just over $13 million. That's a tiny
fraction of the $400 million that USDA is asking for energy initiatives
overall. Why aren't more resources being devoted to making forests and
the forest products industry part of the energy solution at USDA?
Answer. FS R&D is working to overcome supply, sustainability, and
costs barriers for bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts. There is an
opportunity to use fuel treatments, forest residues, small-stems, and
energy crops to supply the feedstocks. We are addressing biomass
management, harvest, and transportation issues to ensure low cost,
sustainable supplies. Work is also increasing in hybrid poplar and
other species to accelerate growth and survival rates for plantation
feedstock production. Work at the Forest Products Laboratory has led to
a recent patent on a new micro-organism capable of metabolizing 5-
carbon sugars, the absence of which have posed the biggest obstacles to
converting wood to ethanol as efficiently as corn to ethanol. On going
R&D efforts at the Forest Products Laboratory has been focused on
improving the efficiency of the ethanol conversion process which will
facilitate new technology deployment and product profitability. The
Forest Inventory and Analysis program has been instrumental along with
other Research modeling techniques to increase the accuracy estimating
volumes and locations of hazardous fuels that are close to industrial
sites capable of converting woody biomass to energy.
realignment
Question 22. Realignment: In a memorandum dated January 21, 2007,
from Chief Dale Bosworth to Regional Foresters and Others and entitled
``Forest Service Realignment'' (file code 1200) (attached), the Chief
ordered a 25% cut in operating costs for the Washington Office (WO) and
Regional Offices (ROs) by FY2009 (FY2006 baseline). So as to be able to
assess just how much money is to be saved by such measures, what was
the actual amount of money spent to operate the WO and each RO in
FY2006?
Answer. The Forest Service has committed to reducing personnel
operating costs at the Washington Office and Regional Offices by 25% by
the end of Fiscal Year 2009. The baseline Fiscal Year 2006 personnel
operating costs we are currently validating are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1................................................ $22,456,606
Region 2................................................ 21,263,549
Region 3................................................ 25,345,279
Region 4................................................ 27,432,683
Region 5................................................ 25,753,153
Region 6................................................ 43,581,711
Region 8................................................ 29,727,094
Region 9................................................ 9,971,947
Region 10............................................... 18,870,638
WO...................................................... 137,827,455
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 362,230,114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses of the Department of Agriculture to Questions From
Senator Salazar
fire
Question 23. The proposed budget cuts State & Volunteer Fire
Assistance by 8%. These programs are important to local communities.
How do you explain these cuts to local communities?
Answer. The Budget recognizes the primacy of State, local, and
volunteer fire departments in wildland fire management on non-Federal
lands. The Administration's budget proposal for State and local fire
assistance is formulated to balance different areas of necessary
Wildland Fire Management work and is based on the priority of State &
Volunteer Fire Assistance among all discretionary programs in the
agency and government-wide.
The FY 2008 President's budget includes an increase of 3% for State
Fire Assistance over FY 2007. Volunteer fire assistance is proposed for
a 56% increase over FY 2007.
bark beetles
Question 24. Chief Kimbell, In 2006 Chief Bosworth allocated funds
from the Chiefs Reserve Fund to work in Colorado to reduce the threat
of wildfire. I'd like to encourage you to consider using any
appropriated reserve funds in Colorado for the same purpose in 2007. Is
that something you will consider?
Answer. Yes.
Question 25. Chief Kimbell, have you finalized the FY 2007
allocations to the regions? I am especially interested to know that
accounts whose work touches on mitigating the effects of the bark
beetle infestation are adequately funded. Will you commit to me to
review the region 2 allocations including hazardous fuels reduction,
forest products, and fire preparedness to ensure they are as robust as
possible?
Answer. Yes. The FY 2007 final budget allocations for every region
have been established to ensure that the total funding from the
combined Forest Products, Salvage Sale Fund, Knutson-Vandenberg Fund
(using expanded authority for regional treatments), and Hazardous Fuels
budget line items is not less than the FY 2006 final budget allocation
in these budget line items for each region.
land sales proposal
Question 26. The President's proposal to sell off 300,000 acres to
generate $800 million has not received a warm welcome in Colorado. I
continue to oppose this approach. What type of public input was
received from individuals, organizations, and local governments prior
to re-submitting this proposal?
Answer. Last year during the public comment period the Forest
Service received over 103,000 comments from hand written, email, and
form letters, as well as telephone calls and individual letters, on the
list of potentially eligible land parcels identified through the public
screening. These comments, which were very specific to being both
against and in support of the proposal, helped the agency in
identifying issues related to specific parcels of land. Based on the
analysis of these comments, the original list of potentially eligible
land parcels was reduced to approximately 274,000 acres from 301,000
acres, resulting in the removal of 242 parcels from the sale list.
Within this amount, 16 parcels totaling 1,500 acres were removed from
the Colorado list.
recreation
Question 27. Region No. 2, whose forests provide recreation to
approximately 32 million people every year, receives the lowest
recreation, heritage and wilderness funding per visit out of any FS
region ($0.60 per visit as compared to $1.06 per visit for Region 1 in
the Northern Rockies). In Colorado a unique group of conservationists,
off road vehicle enthusiasts, and sportsmen have come together to ask
the USFS to boost recreation funding in region 2 to implement travel/
rec management plans. At the same time, we are reading in the papers
about recreational facility closings and new recreation fees.
How do you square that with the $27.4 million decrease for
Recreation in the FY08 Budget Request?
Answer. The FY 2008 President's budget proposal is a balanced
attempt to meet the demands of all program areas within the National
Forest System under a constrained budget. In striking this balance, the
agency will focus on directing available resources towards meeting
long-term strategic goals and providing increased support to programs
that advance sustainable resource management, which includes providing
outdoor recreational opportunities. Although funding allocations to the
field are not fully determined in advance of appropriations the agency
will continue to emphasize distributing funds in areas that maximize
recreation delivery, including the Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2),
and address the highest priority efforts that provide services to the
public and strengthen partnerships which are vital to accomplishing
stewardship work on the ground.
The Forest Service has not identified specific site closures that
will be affected by the FY 2008 budget reduction. The agency is
currently undergoing a review of its recreation facilities through the
Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RS-FMP) process that will
result in a higher quality, more efficiently managed developed
recreation program where the facilities reflect visitor desires and
use. Many of the Forest Service's developed recreation sites were built
30-50 years ago. Since then, visitor preferences and demographics have
changed. Some sites no longer serve projected recreation demand; some
facilities are in poor shape and do not meet visitors' expectations.
Facility master planning helps each national forest align their
developed recreation sites with the unique characteristics of the
forest, projected recreation demand, visitor expectations, and revenue.
Involvement of the local public, surrounding communities and each
national forest's recreation visitors is a critical and essential
component of the RS-FMP process and for any proposal to charge new or
change any existing recreation fees.
Responses of the Department of Agriculture to Questions From
Senator Domenici
fire preparedness
Question 28. The FY 2008 budget proposes to reduce the fire
preparedness funding level in two ways. First, it proposes to establish
an account to pay the salaries of the wildland fire fighters and, next,
it proposes to reduce funding for fire preparedness by approximately
$90 million below the FY 2006 appropriated level.
Undersecretary Rey, you are proposing a separate line item for
wildland fire fighters salaries--can you explain why that is needed?
Answer. The new appropriation addresses the complexity associated
with wildland fire and other hazards by providing funding specifically
for 10,010 professional wildland firefighters. The separate account
ensures a stable number of firefighters and complements the Forest
Service's transition to a risk-informed performance-based system; it
enhances performance, improves accountability, and provides greater
efficiency in managing wildland fires and supporting all-hazard
responses.
Question 29. If funded at the level of $219.7 million that you have
requested, how many fire fighters will be hired?
Answer. The agency plans to have 10,010 firefighters in FY 2008.
Question 30. How much funding did you expend on fire fighters
salaries in FY 2006 and how many fire fighters did you hire?
Answer. In FY 2006 we did not specifically track firefighter
salaries; implementation of the wildland Firefighter Appropriation in
FY 2008 will provide this capability. In FY 2006, we had approximately
9,550 firefighters.
Question 31. You have also requested approximately a $90 million
reduction for wildland preparedness beyond pulling the fire fighter
salaries from this line item. What will be the results of this
reduction? That is, will we see reductions in fire fighting equipment
or in the amount and quality of training?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2007 FY 2008
Resource Planned Planned No. Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters.......................... 10,010 10,010
Interagency Hot Shot Crews........ 67 67
Engines............................... 950 726 (224)
Heavy Equipment--(Bulldozers & water 215 167 (48)
tenders).............................
Aircraft (contracted):
T1, 2, 3 Regional Helicopters..... 84 65 (19)
National T2 Helicopters........... 7 5 (2)
National Type 1 Helicopters....... 15 8 (7)
National Airtankers............... 20 12 (8)
National Lead Planes.............. 12 3 (9)
Jet--Crew Transport............... 1 0 (1)
Prevention Technicians................ 399 277 (122)
Smokejumpers.......................... 277 190 (87)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transition to a risk informed performance based system,
Appropriate Management Response (AMR) and improved incentives, such as
including acres burned at less than severe levels toward attainment of
healthy forests treatment goals, will require fewer traditional
suppression resources. The agency will prioritize resources to the
areas where the highest risk exists. Additionally, if the fire season
is projected to be severe, preparedness resources will be replenished.
The quality of training will not be diminished; reprioritizing
existing resources and personnel will ensure the continuation of
quality training. In addition, where appropriate, savings identified
through implementation of efficiencies such as the potential reduction
of Geographical Coordination Centers and consolidation of fire
facilities will be used to enhance training.
Question 32. How will this affect the agency's ability to put out
fires during initial attacks?
Chief Kimball, let me begin by congratulating you and your staff on
the improvement in performance criteria in this year's budget
justification. While other improvements are needed, I can see an effort
is being made to make these performance measures more meaningful.
Answer. Based on strategies outlined in the FY 2008 President's
Budget and highlighted in the answer to question No. 31, the Forest
Service anticipates a 2 to 5 percent decrease in the number of
wildfires suppressed during initial attack, which would be consistent
with our transition to a risk informed performance based system. The
use risk-informed management will reduce costs compared to a full-
suppression strategy and secure desirable environmental outcomes
without compromising cost containment objectives. New decision tools
and management controls will allow managers to make more informed
decisions relative to risk and resources.
Question 33. I see from a February 21st Yakima Herald-Republic news
article that 23 percent of 3,300 fire fighters who participated in a
survey would decline to serve as an incident commander, and 36 percent
of those surveyed indicated they would decline fire fighting
assignments this next summer as a result of the recent involuntary
manslaughter charges resulting from the Thirtymile Fire case.
Are you familiar with this survey which was done by the
International Association of Wildland Fire Fighters?
Answer. Yes. We have monitored the results and are assessing what
the survey may tell us. Unfortunately, the legal action has caused
concern within the entire firefighting community, including our
interagency cooperators. We would be remiss not to have empathy for any
firefighter in this situation. However, our highly trained special
resources such as smokejumpers and hot-shots crews still remain highly
sought after positions for motivated firefighters.
Question 34. How much credence do you put into this survey?
Answer. We do not know the methodology and margin of error for this
survey but we have to accept the survey for what it was--an opportunity
for firefighters to speak out on issues, much like they did in the
federally sponsored ``Fire Fighter Safety Awareness Study'' TriData
study--conducted in 1997, in which over a thousand firefighters
surveyed provided feedback on improving the wildland fire community as
well as improving conditions for firefighters out in the field.
Wildland firefighters maintain a close-spirited esprit d'corps and we
expect the majority of our highly experienced and skilled firefighters
to return.
Question 35. Can Incident Commander or other key fire organization
personnel purchase liability insurance to protect themselves from these
kinds of investigations? If so what would it cost the Forest Service to
provide such coverage?
Answer. Personnel in supervisory positions may purchase liability
insurance if they choose. In cases as described above, the agency will
pay for one half of the cost of the insurance premium. Other personnel
may purchase liability insurance if they choose as well but are
currently required to cover the full cost of the premiums. Liability
insurance does not protect a person from being the subject of a legal
investigation. Nor does it preclude personnel from being questioned
during the course of a legal investigation. Professional Liability
insurance provides protection against claims that the policyholder
becomes legally obligated to pay as a result of an error or omission in
his or her professional work. The purpose of our safety investigation
is to determine the true causal factors of an accident and extract
lessons learned to prevent death, injuries, or future accidents. Should
it be determined that the fear of being liable is a barrier to fielding
firefighters, an appropriate mitigation would be pursued.
If the agency were to help provide liability insurance coverage for
approximately 8,000 employees it is estimated that it would cost the
Forest Service $1.2 million dollars per year.
Question 36. Have you done any checking of your employees to see if
they are serious about stepping away from fire fighting this summer and
beyond?
Answer. We are open to receiving feedback from all of our
employees. We have noted a few instances of personnel not renewing
specific qualifications but we have not determined what the cause is in
each specific situation. In the case of wildland firefighters, at the
height of one busy summer day, 25,000 firefighters and support
personnel can be working on fires. We would expect our fire managers at
local, regional, and national levels to report upwards if they were
observing trends with firefighters and support personnel indicating
they would not be taking assignments.
Question 37. What will you do if 23 percent of your Incident
Commanders do decline to serve this summer?
Answer. We will not be able to estimate the impact until all of our
temporary employees return to work and their 2007 qualification cards
are updated and distributed. We believe the long term impacts will be
substantially less than was indicated by the recent International
Association of Wildland Firefighters polling of firefighters.
Regardless of any impact, we will continue to place only qualified
individuals on incidents.
Question 38. I would like you to provide this Committee with a
cost-benefit analysis of what would happen to your ability to
successfully fight fires and your costs of fighting fires if 25% of
your Incident Commanders and 36% of you part-time fire organization
members called it quits when it comes to fire fighting. Then compare
that to the cost of providing liability insurance or a legislative
waiver that will offer these fire fighters the legal support needed to
defend themselves from such charges.
Answer. Conducting a cost benefit analysis on our ability to
successfully fight fires and the costs thereof, with the reductions you
mentioned, is not possible since the potential losses from future fire
events are not known. Should our capability to manage incidents become
diminished, the agency will pursue appropriate mitigations to remedy
the situation.
invasive species
Question 39. Chief Kimball, you've listed the following Strategic
Goals and proposed the following budget changes:
Reduce Wildfire Risk--$1.9 billion; 5.7 percent increase;
Reduce Invasive species--$117.8 million; 41 percent decrease
from FY 2006 levels;
Provide Recreation Opportunity--$760 million; slight
decrease;
Help meet Energy Needs--$102 million; 5 percent decrease;
Improve Watersheds--$983 million; 8 percent decline; and
Other Forest Service Programs--$741 million; nearly a 30
percent decrease.
Does a 41 percent decrease in funding mean that you have thrown in
the towel on invasive species? What will be the impact of this dramatic
reduction?
Answer. The Forest Service is not abandoning the fight against
invasive species. Budget constraints require the agency to focus
program priorities very carefully and difficult decisions had to be
made. In FY 2008 there is more attention on early detection and rapid
response toward new forest insect and pathogen invaders and this
emphasis should save funds in the long term.
general funding reductions
Question 40. I am concerned by the amount of reduction proposed for
all of the other Forest Service programs. A 30% reduction in all of the
rest of the programs is significant, and I want to understand what
other steps can be taken to lessen the impact of such a large decrease
in funding?
Answer. The Forest Service is undertaking a number of actions to
redirect funding to field units, one of which is the Business
Operations Transformation Program (BOTP) that is centralizing,
streamlining, and reengineering: Information Technology (IT), Financial
Management (FM) and Human Capital (HC) services. The purpose of the
program is to 1) improve efficiency of service, 2) reduce indirect
costs, and 3) focus on improving the ability of Forest Service
employees to meet the agency mission. The program has been implemented
over the last three years and in FY 2008 will realize a next cost
reduction of $86.3 million. These are funds that can be redirected to
field units to improve the ability of the Forest Service to meet the
agency land and resource management mission.
[In Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2007 FY 2008
BOTP Total Planned Planned
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Organization............................. 318.6 326.0
Redesigned Organization........................... 234.1 239.7
Implementation Cost............................... 19.8 ( \1\ )
---------------------
Net Cost Reduction.......................... 64.7 86.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.
Second, competitive sourcing studies completed since FY 2003 have
resulted in the following savings and cost reductions:
Through FY 2005: $20.2 Million
$65 thousand--R6 Olympic NF Roads Maintenance (8 FTEs) (8
Months)
$1.6 million--R5 Fleet Maintenance (59 FTEs) (7 Months)
$998 thousand--R5 Roads Maintenance (66 FTEs) (15 Months)
$16.8 million--IT Infrastructure (1,200 FTEs) (11 Months)--
Reduction of 292 FTE by 9/05
In FY 2006: $19.6 Million
$62 thousand--R6 Olympic NF Roads Maintenance
$844 thousand--R5 Fleet Maintenance. Savings reported
through April only. Contract terminated 05/06.
$241 thousand--R5 Roads Maintenance. Savings adjusted due to
effect of fewer than planned projects due to lower than
anticipated budget.
$18.4 million--IT Infrastructure.
Finally, the agency has convened a National Transformation
Management Team to evaluate and redesign the Washington and Regional
Office organizational structure. The goal of this team is to reduce
operating costs by 25 percent by the end of FY 2009. The effort will
include the National Forest System, State and Private Forestry program
areas, as well as components of Business Operations and Research and
Development and result in an agency that maximizes capabilities and
efficiencies, realigns fragmented organizations, and eliminates
duplicate efforts by the Washington Office, regions, stations, and the
Northeast Area. Project milestones include an approved Transformation
Design Plan with organizational development phases. These phases
include data collection, analysis, concepts and design, projected cost
savings, and proposed migration plans to new organizations between
March 2008 and September 2009.
Question 41a. Could you provide the Committee with an estimate of
how much of the discretionary budget is consumed by salaries, benefits,
and travel for each of the following work areas: Research, State and
Private, National Forest Systems; and the national fire plan.
Answer.
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS BY MAJOR BUDGET OBJECT GROUPING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund OBLIG SALARY BENEFITS TRAVEL OTHER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research........................ $307,213 $150,648 $43,708 $13,388 $99,469
Percentage.................. 100.00 49.04 14.23 4.36 32.38
State & Private Forestry........ $391,206 $52,476 $14,569 $6,421 $317,740
Percentage.................. 100.00 13.41 3.72 1.64 81.22
National Forest System.......... $1,469,100 $668,825 $214,440 $48,211 $537,624
Percentage.................. 100.00 45.53 14.60 3.28 36.60
Wildland Fire Management........ $2,434,679 $745,761 $220,067 $71,577 $1,397,273
Percentage.................. 100.00 30.63 9.04 2.94 57.39
Capital Improvement & $454,975 $147,988 $48,882 $8,867 $249,238
Maintenance....................
Percentage.................. 100.00 32.53 10.74 1.95 54.78
Land Acquisition................ $87,532 $6,195 $1,756 $382 $79,199
Percentage.................. 100.00 7.08 2.01 0.44 90.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Total obligations may be $1--$2 million different from amount of Direct Obligations shown in the FY 2008
President's Budget Appendix due to rounding.
Obligations are those of appropriated budget authority only.
1. State and Private Forestry does not include $5 million in
Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) obligation.
2. Land Acquisition does not include $1.2 million in
obligations from Acquisition of Lands to Complete Land
Exchanges and Acquisitions--Special Acts.
Obligations for National Fire Plan funds transferred from Wildland
Fire are recorded in the Appropriation to which they are transferred.
Fire Research obligations are recorded in Research.
Restoration obligations are recorded in National Forest
System.
NFP State Fire Assistance, Volunteer Fire Assistance, Forest
Health Management Fed and Coop Lands are recorded in State and
Private Forestry.
Question 41a. Could you provide the Committee with an estimate of
how much of the discretionary budget is expended at the following line
levels: the Washington Office; the Regional Offices; the Forest
Supervisors Offices; the District Offices; and the Research Stations.
Answer.
FY 2006 YEAR END BUDGET AUTHORITY ANALYSIS (INCLUDING CARRYOVER AND
RECEIPTS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Expended
Region/Unit Unit Name Total at Local
Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 1:
0102 BEAVERHEAD- 18,969,913 0.30
DEERLODGE.
0103 BITTERROOT..... 13,930,500 0.22
0104 IDAHO PANHANDLE 35,827,759 0.56
0105 CLEARWATER..... 19,434,497 0.30
0108 CUSTER......... 9,722,924 0.15
0110 FLATHEAD....... 23,410,183 0.37
0111 GALLATIN....... 16,190,039 0.25
0112 HELENA......... 12,746,040 0.20
0114 KOOTENAI....... 27,715,199 0.43
0115 LEWIS AND CLARK 11,937,513 0.19
0116 LOLO........... 23,189,726 0.36
0117 NEZPERCE....... 21,141,554 0.33
0118 DAKOTA PRAIRIE 9,517,862 0.15
GRASSLANDS.
0152 AERIAL FIRE 11,847,060 0.19
DEPOT.
0156 R1 REGIONAL 79,945,857 1.25
OFFICE.
0198 CENTRALLY 14,089,556 0.22
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 349,616,182 5.46
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 243,733,709
------------------------------------------
REGION 2:
0202 BIGHORN........ 10,504,639 0.16
0203 BLACK HILLS.... 36,872,272 0.58
0204 GRAND MESA-UNC- 19,508,300 0.30
GUNN.
0206 MEDICINE BOW/ 24,603,500 0.38
ROUTT.
0207 NEBRASKA....... 8,342,100 0.13
0209 RIO GRANDE..... 10,915,858 0.17
0210 ARAPAHO- 24,443,800 0.38
ROOSEVELT.
0212 PIKE-SAN ISABEL 28,497,456 0.45
0213 SAN JUAN....... 19,645,075 0.31
0214 SHOSHONE....... 12,218,949 0.19
0215 WHITE RIVER.... 18,314,600 0.29
0231 R2 REGIONAL 59,438,090 0.93
OFFICE.
0298 CENTRALLY 8,576,761 0.13
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 281,881,400 4.40
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 213,866,549
------------------------------------------
REGION 3:
0301 APACHE- 26,993,030 0.42
SITGREAVES NF.
0302 CARSON NF...... 15,197,808 0.24
0303 CIBOLA NF...... 18,228,730 0.28
0304 COCONINO NF.... 32,832,723 0.51
0305 CORONADO....... 22,027,581 0.34
0306 GILA........... 21,128,278 0.33
0307 KAIBAB......... 13,840,536 0.22
0308 LINCOLN........ 15,486,910 0.24
0309 PRESCOTT....... 14,716,731 0.23
0310 SANTA FE....... 22,025,249 0.34
0312 TONTO.......... 28,007,080 0.44
0316 R3 REGIONAL 49,809,595 0.78
OFFICE.
0398 CENTRALLY 4,191,258 0.07
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 284,485,509 4.44
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 230,484,656
------------------------------------------
REGION 4:
0401 ASHLEY......... 14,037,776 0.22
0402 BOISE.......... 31,079,504 0.49
0403 BRIDGER-TETON.. 17,253,656 0.27
0407 DIXIE.......... 18,214,046 0.28
0408 FISHLAKE....... 14,783,919 0.23
0410 MANTI-LASAL.... 11,486,563 0.18
0412 PAYETTE........ 25,091,197 0.39
0413 SALMON-CHALLIS. 22,374,951 0.35
0414 SAWTOOTH....... 17,717,120 0.28
0415 CARIBOU-TARGHEE 22,780,016 0.36
0417 HUMBOLDT- 34,390,989 0.54
TOIYABE.
0418 UINTA.......... 13,585,190 0.21
0419 WASATCH-CACHE.. 20,615,134 0.32
0460 R4 REGIONAL 50,952,436 0.80
OFFICE.
0498 CENTRALLY 13,522,315 0.21
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 327,884,812 5.12
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 263,410,061
------------------------------------------
REGION 5:
0501 ANGELES........ 36,342,097 0.57
0502 CLEVELAND...... 22,660,322 0.35
0503 ELDORADO....... 23,084,367 0.36
0504 INYO........... 17,000,222 0.27
0505 KLAMATH........ 26,113,093 0.41
0506 LASSEN......... 29,708,855 0.46
0507 LOS PADRES..... 24,905,302 0.39
0508 MENDOCINO...... 15,796,234 0.25
0509 MODOC.......... 14,593,304 0.23
0510 SIX RIVERS..... 19,052,710 0.30
0511 PLUMAS......... 34,821,288 0.54
0512 SAN BERNARDINO. 50,934,462 0.80
0513 SEQUOIA........ 23,725,486 0.37
0514 SHASTA TRINITY. 38,394,470 0.60
0515 SIERRA......... 23,207,341 0.36
0516 STANISLAUS..... 27,565,269 0.43
0517 TAHOE.......... 25,674,727 0.40
0519 LAKE TAHOE 49,744,289 0.78
BASIN MGMT
UNIT.
0520 R5 REGIONAL 115,489,121 1.80
OFFICE.
0598 CENTRALLY 14,557,846 0.23
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 633,370,805 9.89
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 503,323,838
------------------------------------------
REGION 6:
0601 DESCHUTES...... 41,103,482 0.64
0602 FREMONT-WINEMA. 34,647,183 0.54
0603 GIFFORD PINCHOT 19,994,914 0.31
0604 MALHEUR........ 22,111,226 0.35
0605 MT BAKER- 19,768,143 0.31
SNOQUALMIE.
0606 MT HOOD........ 19,867,094 0.31
0607 OCHOCO......... 12,601,451 0.20
0609 OLYMPIC........ 15,344,886 0.24
0610 ROGUE RIVER- 39,168,236 0.61
SISKIYOU.
0612 SIUSLAW........ 17,132,398 0.27
0614 UMATILLA....... 21,567,957 0.34
0615 UMPQUA......... 24,659,843 0.39
0616 WALLOWA WHITMAN 26,097,837 0.41
0617 OKANOGAN- 42,558,212 0.66
WENATCHEE.
0618 WILLAMETTE..... 33,369,074 0.52
0621 COLVILLE....... 15,302,353 0.24
0622 COLUMBIA RIVER 6,146,207 0.10
GORGE NAT AREA.
0627 R6 REGIONAL 94,522,752 1.48
OFFICE.
0698 CENTRALLY 546,970 0.01
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 506,510,218 7.91
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 411,440,496
------------------------------------------
REGION 8:
0801 NFS IN ALABAMA. 17,062,834 0.27
0802 DANIEL BOONE... 14,049,374 0.22
0803 CHATT-OCONEE... 15,324,282 0.24
0804 CHEROKEE....... 19,854,635 0.31
0805 NFS IN FLORIDA. 24,489,540 0.38
0806 KISATCHIE...... 19,553,650 0.31
0807 NFS IN 72,517,257 1.13
MISSISSIPPI.
0808 GEORGE 24,176,720 0.38
WASHINGTON/
JEFFERSON.
0809 OUACHITA....... 34,661,318 0.54
0810 OZARK-ST 23,147,077 0.36
FRANCIS.
0811 NFS IN NORTH 51,061,912 0.80
CAROLINA.
0812 FRANCIS MARION 19,763,891 0.31
& SUMTER.
0813 NFS IN TEXAS... 33,274,486 0.52
0816 CARIBBEAN...... 4,451,004 0.07
0860 LAND BETWEEN 12,948,984 0.20
THE LAKES NRA.
0820 R8 REGIONAL 138,691,136 2.17
PROJECTS/
SERVICES.
0836 SAVANNAH RIVER 174,605 0.00
FORESTS
STATION.
0898 CENTRALLY 25,421,180 0.40
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 550,623,885 8.60
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 386,336,964
------------------------------------------
REGION 9:
0903 CHIPPEWA....... 11,281,803 0.18
0904 HURON MANISTEE. 17,747,609 0.28
0905 MARK TWAIN..... 18,297,382 0.29
0907 OTTAWA......... 11,894,982 0.19
0908 SHAWNEE........ 7,176,489 0.11
0909 SUPERIOR....... 28,752,589 0.45
0910 HIAWATHA....... 12,940,694 0.20
0912 HOOSIER........ 5,941,722 0.09
0913 CHEQUAMEGON- 27,756,423 0.43
NICOLET.
0914 WAYNE.......... 8,911,260 0.14
0915 MIDEWIN NATL 7,027,124 0.11
TALLGRASS
PRAIRIE.
0919 ALLEGHENY...... 15,828,276 0.25
0920 GREEN MOUNTAIN/ 10,100,053 0.16
FINGER LAKES.
0921 MONONGAHELA.... 15,515,919 0.24
0922 WHITE MOUNTAIN. 12,665,877 0.20
0901 R9 REGIONAL 59,888,801 0.94
OFFICE.
0998 CENTRALLY 4,024,091 0.06
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 275,751,094 4.31
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 211,838,202
------------------------------------------
REGION 10:
1004 CHUGACH........ 25,836,665 0.40
1005 TONGASS........ 80,840,901 1.26
1001 R10 REGIONAL 44,907,743 0.70
OFFICE.
1098 CENTRALLY 6,042,912 0.09
ADMINISTERED
REGIONAL
PROJECTS.
------------------------------------------
REGIONAL TOTAL. 157,628,221 2.46
------------------------------------------
Forests Total.. 106,677,566
------------------------------------------
OTHER UNITS:
1111 FOREST PRODUCTS 31,928,040 0.50
LAB.
1201 INTERNATIONAL 9,592,582 0.15
INSTITUTE OF
TROPICAL
FORESTRY.
2216 ROCKY MOUNTAIN 81,873,458 1.28
RESEARCH
STATION.
2313 NORTH CENTRAL 28,069,327 0.44
RESEARCH
STATION.
2423 NORTH EAST 41,582,426 0.65
RESEARCH
STATION.
2442 NORTHEASTERN 108,672,587 1.70
AREA.
2619 PACIFIC 54,641,731 0.85
NORTHWEST
RESEARCH
STATION.
2721 PACIFIC 33,703,382 0.53
SOUTHWEST
RESEARCH
STATION.
3301 SOUTHERN 68,694,576 1.07
RESEARCH
STATION.
------------------------------------------
Research 458,758,109
Stations and
Area Total.
------------------------------------------
13 Total WO & DETACHED 376,098,882 5.87
UNITS.
14 & 15 NATIONAL 1,594,247,337 24.90
UNALLOCATED
(e.g. PAYMENTS
TO STATES,
USDA WCF &
ASSESSMENTS,
CHIEF'S
EMERGENCY
FUND,
SUPPRESSION,
LAND
ACQUISITION,
EXCESS KV,
OWCP & UCI
PAYMENTS).
Other Misc. 246,961,996 3.86
Direct
Obligations.
25 ALBUQUERQUE 358,044,550 5.59
SERVICE CENTER.
------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.... 6,401,863,000 100
------------------------------------------
Forests total.. 2,571,112,041
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to OMB.--Financial obligations are not reported at the ranger
district level except for unique ``job codes'' otherwise they are
reported at the national forest level. Unique job codes were set up
for Congressional earmark projects on districts This statement will be
remove for transmittal to the Subcommittee.
Question 42. As I mentioned I am happy to see that you're making
efforts to reduce the costs of the Washington Office and Regional
Offices by 25% by the end of Fiscal Year 2009.
As your team develops alternatives, would you keep the Committee
and my staff up to date on what alternative is being considered and
which programs those funds will be shifted to?
Answer. Yes, we plan to keep your Committee and your staff, as well
as other stakeholders informed about the organizational alternatives
being considered.