[Senate Hearing 108-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-7
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED FOREST
SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-299 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, USDA Forest Service, accompanied by
Hank Kashdan, Director of Program and Budget Analysis.......... 11
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 4
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 5
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 19
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 3
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 20
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Well, we are almost
on time, Senator Bingaman. That is pretty good for these days.
Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome Under
Secretary Mark Rey and the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale
Bosworth, to appear before the committee in general to discuss
the 2004 budget request for the Forest Service.
We have had a chance to look at it, most staff have and
most Senators, but obviously it is difficult for us to answer
our own questions as we read it. We are going to have to ask
some questions about why you did certain things. We hope you
will be as frank as you can.
I can tell you at the outset I am totally aware of what
went on in putting a budget together. These are difficult
times. You were charged with tradeoffs and certainly in that
process I do not challenge your exercise of discretion in terms
of the exercise of prioritization, but I do believe that the
budget before us raises some very difficult questions for us
because it is pretty obvious that some of the areas that are
not adequately funded are going to require funding before the
year is out. We are sort of growing weary of not funding these
very much needed areas, either expecting to fund them later or
to get the money by trading off during the year with other
accounts being used.
I myself would like very much this year, Senator Bingaman,
to have this committee inform the Budget Committee what it is
we think is inadequate and why, and I would like to present the
case to them in the Budget Committee that if they want to be
confronted with emergencies where we have to break their
budget, then leave it as is. If they want to be realistic, they
ought to add some things that are going to be needed that we
are probably going to agree on here in the committee on a
bipartisan basis.
First of all, I understand that the $604 million that you
propose for fire suppression is equal to the 10-year average. I
am now speaking of the 10-year average as adjusted for
inflation in the area that you have provided the $604 million
that I am referring to. I am troubled by the proposal because
to zero out funding in the rehabilitation and restoration line
item, while I understand that these programs have always been
job one and will be handled out of other line items, I worry
about the consequences of other programs if we suffer a
serious, bad fire season again this year. I am sure that we
will get a number of questions on this issue. As soon as
Senator Bingaman has made his opening remarks, I would hope
that you would address that serious problem that we already
see, and it is kind of a glaring problem.
I note also that there are a number of proposed reductions
that I think are probably the result of what I just explained,
tight budgets. But I know that you will help us understand how
you made the choices. While some of us like to see important
private land acquired and placed into Federal management, I
think it is pretty obvious that when budgets are this tight, it
comes to many of us how are we going to manage more land when
we cannot manage what we have now got. I am not suggesting
something as dramatic as getting rid of land, but it does seem
to me that we do have a situation that cries out for some kind
of solution other than business as usual on the acquisition
side with little or no significant increases available to
maintain what we have got.
The deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements
account. Let us talk about it. I note that we have this
maintenance backlog, and that is a clear symptom of the need to
focus on managing our current Federal estate.
And finally I note that you recommend funds for economic
action programs and Pacific Northwest assistance programs. I
hope you will describe what other Department of Agriculture
programs can back-fill for these needs. Obviously, being from
New Mexico, a little-known fact is it is a region that actually
saw a more precipitous drop in timber sales in the mid-1990's
than Oregon and Washington did. I often wondered just how long
these programs could be continued.
I will first turn to our ranking member, Senator Bingaman,
and indicate that it has been a pleasure working with you so
far. I hope that continues throughout the year.
Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much. Thank you for having
the hearing.
Let me just mention a couple of items that are of concern.
As a general matter, I understand the budget that we are being
presented with is essentially a flat budget. That is probably
about what one would expect given the fiscal situation that we
are in. At the same time, the need, particularly related to the
wildfire problem that we have in the West, calls for something
other than that in my view. That concerns me.
As I understand what is being proposed, there is about $416
million proposed for activities to help reduce hazardous fuels
in anticipation of fires. This is just a very slight increase
over what was appropriated in 2002. If we do have another bad
fire season--all indications are that we are going to have
another bad fire season--I do not think that maintaining level
funding for wildfire management is going to be adequate.
This past year there was over $1 billion that had to be
transferred from other accounts in order to help cover fire
fighting costs. I think the omnibus appropriation bill we are
going to be considering today and tomorrow contains money to
try to reimburse those accounts. I do not know that they are
totally reimbursed. In fact, I believe they will remain at
least a couple of hundred million dollars short of the amounts
that were originally appropriated for them.
The chairman mentioned the proposal to zero out funding for
rehabilitation and restoration of burned areas. That concerns
me as well, and I would be anxious to know the position of the
Forest Service on that.
It appears that we are also moving away from giving
priority to wildland-urban interface areas in the allocation of
the funds. At least that is the impression I get. I would like
to hear further about how the agency sets its priorities at
this point. The Forest Service is proposing to treat about
170,000 fewer acres in this wildland-urban interface than is
currently targeted, as I understand it.
I do think it is unfortunate that we have seen such a
proposed cut in Federal land acquisition, about a 70 percent
cut from what was appropriated last year. That particularly
affects landowners who are, in many cases, surrounded by
national forests and have been waiting a long time in an effort
to sell their lands.
I do want to also ask a question, after we hear testimony
regarding the concern that some have expressed about a shift
toward favoring more commercial timber harvesting and see if
that is something that is an explicit policy or if that is not
in fact what is happening. I would like to know what the Forest
Service position is on that.
I very much appreciate your scheduling the hearing, and I
look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I was going to proceed right to the witnesses, but since
there are only two Senators, it would not take too much time if
you would like to make a few comments.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I will be pleased to yield to you and then,
Senator Johnson, we will give you an equal amount of time.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. I appreciate it and I will be brief.
Welcome, gentlemen. Delighted to have you here.
I just wanted to comment on some general areas, and perhaps
as you go through your specifics, you might see how some of
those dollars relate to some of the issues. Fire suppression,
obviously, is one of the ones that is most important to us.
I think for those of us particularly who live where we have
50 percent Federal lands in our State, access to these lands is
important to us, whether it be roadless, whether it be
wilderness. Wilderness studies seem to go on perpetually on
some of those things.
Of course, management overall, but management plans, some
of which go on for years beyond the 10 years that is supposed
to be the case I understand.
Local cooperation and jointly working with local people and
local governments. I am going to put in a bill that has to do
with the cooperating agency and see if we cannot make that work
a little bit better than we have in the past.
At some point we are going to be talking about fee
demonstration projects in parks, and whether or not that is
useful or works in the forests is interesting to me as well.
So those are the main things, and then management of
course, regional level and so on is very important. So these
are just things that, as I look at the budget, I will be
looking to see what we can do hopefully to strengthen those.
Thank you. I look forward to your comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Johnson, do you have a few observations?
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Just very briefly. I will submit a full
opening statement.
Just let me, first, welcome Under Secretary Rey and Forest
Service Chief Bosworth to the committee and express my
appreciation for the personal attention that you gave to our
circumstances in the Black Hills National Forest since last
summer while we had two particularly large fires underway in
that very unique forest with the huge amount of human interface
that we have in the national forest there in South Dakota.
I appreciate what you are attempting to do. I have some
differences of opinion about the budgetary aspects of what you
are being asked to work with and I appreciate that those are
not numbers that you chose necessarily. They were numbers that
you were being asked to work with.
But government is a matter of setting priorities. That is
what we do, and this is a rich country. We can do a lot of
things. We cannot do everything, but we can do a lot of things.
But I simply have to express some concern as we embark on the
2004 budget process here. The budget resolution--hopefully we
will have one this year and more timely appropriations than we
had in 2003.
But I have to share some concern about recommendations that
we can apparently afford over $100 million in tax cuts this
year, but we are being told that we should have a flat line
budget in funding hazardous fuel reduction and zero out funding
for rehabilitation of burned lands and require our Forest
Service to continue to borrow from accounts falling behind, I
am afraid, with the costs of the fire rehabilitation. And this
worries me a great deal. We have, I am told, a 2003 shortfall
of nearly $600 million from last year's fire season, and this
is going to continue to cause us, I think, some serious
problems.
I look forward to some questions specifically on the Black
Hills Forest at the appropriate time, but welcome to this
committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator
From South Dakota
Thank you, Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, for
scheduling this important hearing to receive testimony and review the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Service budget. I appreciate
Under-Secretary Mark Rey and Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth setting
aside time in their schedules to appear before this committee, and I
look forward to probing the details and policy implications of the
budget blueprint.
The funding priorities in the Administration's budget raise three
key questions toward protecting and enhancing America's National Forest
and Grassland system.
Through a series of administrative actions, the Forest Service and
other federal land agencies have sought to expedite fuel reduction
projects, hasten the administrative appeals process, and propose new
rules for land resource management plans. Additional legislative
proposals seek statutory changes that limit the public involvement in
the management of public lands. Understanding how these interconnected
policies improve and enhance our forests and rangelands, while
protecting our communities is a key challenge for our witnesses.
The 2002 fire season burned millions of acres resulting in fire
suppression costs in excess of $1.4 billion. The devastating 2002 fire
season spurred action for the current basket of proposed land
management policies. However, the President's budget blueprint holds
the line on funding crucial hazardous fuel reduction projects and
zeroed-out funding for the rehabilitation and restoration of burned
lands. I am concerned that the proposed budget fails to provide
adequate resources for the types of on-the-ground activities these new
rules and procedures require.
Finally, to some members on the committee, the Forest Service
always appears to be playing catch-up, borrowing from non-wildland fire
accounts to cover the recurring, yet somehow unanticipated costs of
fire. These interagency transfers result in delaying important capital
improvements and disrupting the daily functions of the National Forest
System. With a Fiscal Year 2003 shortfall of $600 million from last
year's fire season, I am deeply concerned how this shortfall will be
absorbed within the Forest Service budget.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward
to hearing from the witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let us proceed. We will make your entire statement part of
the record now as to both of you. Would you proceed to
summarize them so that we will have some time left over. Thank
you very much to both of you. Please proceed.
Secretary Rey, you go first.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and
members of the committee. I am pleased to join you today to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for the Forest
Service, along with Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service.
In my testimony, specifically I want to discuss the Healthy
Forests Initiative and the President's Management Agenda. I
will summarize and submit my entire statement for the record.
However, before starting on those two subjects, I would
like to first congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming the
leadership of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I
look forward to working with you and have appreciated your
support for Forest Service programs and those of Senator
Bingaman over the last several years.
In fiscal year 2000, in particular, we were very
appreciative of both of your advocacy for what was, at the
time, referred to as the ``happy forest'' initiative, through
which you proposed significant funding increases for Hazardous
Fuel Reduction. It was out of that emphasis on Congress' part,
with your leadership, that the National Fire Plan emerged. As
the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed plans
to restore the health of the Nation's forests and rangelands,
the Forest Service's Cohesive Strategy was developed. These
efforts, in turn, later evolved into what is now referred to as
the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan that
was developed along with the Western Governors and other State
and local cooperators.
In the late 1990's, in response to the concern over the
risk of catastrophic fire, the Forest Service developed the
first fire risk maps depicting condition classes of forests
based upon fuel loads. What you will see on the map to your
left there is the fire risk map depicting the different
condition classes. Condition class 2 is in yellow. Condition
class 3, which is the stands with the heaviest fuel loads, the
most susceptible to catastrophic fire, are in red.
The catastrophic fire seasons of fiscal year 2000 and 2002,
the serious forest health problems highlighted in these risk
maps, and the initiatives to address forest health represent a
cornerstone in what is now known as the President's Healthy
Forests Initiative. And I want to thank you for your role in
supporting key elements of the President's emphasis, and
perhaps during the discussion later today we will be able to
discuss the elements of the Healthy Forests Initiative in more
detail.
To give you a perspective on what we see coming in this
current year and in this coming fire year, the map on your
right shows those areas where we predict above-normal or below-
normal risk of wildfire based on long-term weather and climate
predictions, as well as current readings of fuel moisture. The
area in red is where we predict a higher-than-average risk of
wildfire during the coming season.
There is some good news and some bad news on that map. The
good news is that the Southwest--since as I am talking to two
Senators from New Mexico--is predicted to be little wetter this
year than it has been in years past. What that suggests is that
there is a chance that the fire season will get a later start
and that we will not be as involved as we were last year in the
April and May fires in Arizona and New Mexico. The bad news, of
course, is that there is still an extended area in the northern
Rockies and in the northern plains where we anticipate a
higher-than-average fire risk for the coming year.
In addition to the emphasis on healthy forests, the fiscal
year 2004 program for the Forest Service provides a strong
emphasis on healthy government through the President's
Management Agenda. We will be working closely with the
administration and the Congress to assure that the President's
objectives of efficiency, performance, and accountability are
reflected in Forest Service operations.
I would like to congratulate the Forest Service for its
significant accomplishment in obtaining for the first time this
year an unqualified audit opinion on the fiscal year 2002
financial statements. This clean opinion for the Forest Service
and for the entire Department of Agriculture is important,
although I must note that this clean opinion is the minimum
America's taxpayers should expect in the management of Federal
funds. The Forest Service is committed to working hard to
maintain this clean financial status, and we have an action
plan for further improvements in accounting and reconciliation
functions, as well as significantly streamlining the
organization and improving the integration of budget and
performance information.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would leave the entirety of my
statement for the record and then just touch on some of the
areas that you raised with regard to suppression funding, fuels
treatment, rehabilitation funding, and deferred maintenance.
Our suppression budget is funded, as it has been in past
years, based on an average figure for wildfire costs.
Obviously, we have exceeded that average in four of the last
six fire seasons, and as long as we remain in a prolonged
drought situation, there is no reason to believe we will not
exceed it this coming year.
That brings us, I think, to an interest in working with you
to see if there is a better way, with this committee and the
Budget Committee, to set up a system for funding fire fighting
costs that does not involve us in an annual exercise of
borrowing from other accounts in order to pay for fire fighting
efforts.
The Chairman. What is the dollar figure that represents
that average? Excuse me. What is the dollar number?
Mr. Rey. $604 million. That would be the 10-year average.
The Chairman. Yes. That is what you are asking for.
Mr. Rey. Right. That is right.
The Chairman. Just to set a couple of years on record, what
will last year's cost?
Mr. Rey. $1.4 billion. Last year was the single most
expensive year on record in terms of dollars spent, the second
most significant year in terms of acreage burned. 2000 was the
record year in terms of acres burned and the second most
expensive fire season to date.
The Chairman. So it does not do a lot of good for you to
use these percentages like we suppressed all but eight-tenths
of a percent because it is the seven- or eight-tenths of a
percent that has cost you this $1.4 billion. Right?
Mr. Rey. That is correct, and we, I think, have a graphic
to show you during the Chief's testimony to that end.
The Chairman. Why do you think we can get by with an
average when things seem no different than last year? Have
there been any big changes out there in the environment that
might mitigate this?
Mr. Rey. We are initiating a number of efforts for cost
control, particularly on large fires. But heretofore, what we
have done historically is try to budget a prudent amount based
upon average statistics and then use the borrowing authority to
supplement that. That is becoming increasingly problematic and
perhaps that is a good reason for the Congress and the
administration to look at some alternatives as we go forward.
With regard to fuels treatment, both of you correctly noted
a modest increase in fuels treatment. That increase will be
supplemented with an additional $27 million of 2002 money that
was borrowed for fire fighting that I think the conferees on
the omnibus bill voted to restore yesterday. So that $27
million will be added on top for fuels treatment work during
this year and into fiscal year 2004.
Also, we believe that as we get some of the administrative
reforms associated with the Healthy Forests Initiative on line,
we will be reducing significantly the unit cost for doing fuels
treatment work and fuels treatment dollars will be stretched
further as a consequence.
You also noted that we have zeroed out the rehabilitation
account and wondered how we would be funding rehabilitation
work. Typically, as the Chief will explain in his testimony, we
draw from a number of accounts to do rehabilitation work. In
fact, the emergency rehabilitation work immediately following a
fire has already been done because we use suppression dollars
or fire fighting dollars for that purpose. Additionally, we
will have $24 million in 2002 money that will be restored to
the rehabilitation account that will augment further
rehabilitation work in 2003 and 2004.
With regard to the deferred maintenance question in the
capital improvement account being zero, the budget this year
includes a legislative recommendation to provide us the
authority to convey at fair market value excess assets and
facilities that are no longer of use to the Forest Service and
to use that money to put into a capital improvement account.
If I can digress for just a minute to show you pictorially
what we are talking about, I am going to ask the Forest Service
to put up a map and then some pictures.
In the Angeles National Forest, we are faced with a
situation where the communities have grown out into the forest
and, as a consequence, we have isolated tracts and facilities
that are no longer of any use to the Forest Service and no
longer make sense for the Forest Service to own. We will point
to a couple of those as we show you pictures of them. I think
you have these pictures before you.
The first picture is the Sierra Madre House owned by the
Forest Service in the middle of one of the Los Angeles suburbs.
That came into the Forest Service's hands some number of years
ago. It is still part of the Government's asset base but is in
no real sense part of the national forest nor of any particular
use to the Forest Service. We do rent it at probably something
less than fair market value. The second picture shows you the
sort of neighborhood that that house is in.
The third picture is what we call the Irwindale property,
an isolated tract with no trees involved, also owned by the
Forest Service in the Los Angeles Basin. It is a 9-acre site
with sand and gravel quarry operations that we are currently
holding for no particular purpose.
The combined value of these tracts is about $5 million.
That is their current market value. With the kind of authority
outlined in our proposal, should you see fit to give us that
authority, we would attempt to convey these kinds of isolated
and excess properties and facilities at fair market value and
then use that for capital improvements, in particular, the
capital improvement for the picture of the ranger district
office that you are looking at which is a collection of mobile
homes grafted together. So that is one way we think that,
without an increase in our budget authority, we can deal with
our deferred maintenance problem. Hence, the proposal before
you.
With that, I would be happy to respond to any of your
questions and turn the microphone over to Chief Bosworth.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2004
Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Dale Bosworth,
Chief of the Forest Service, at this hearing today.
overview
In my testimony, I want to discuss the President's plans for the
Forest Service with particular attention to the Healthy Forests
Initiative and the President's Management Agenda. However, before
addressing these two subjects, I would first like to congratulate you,
Mr. Chairman, on assuming leadership of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. I look forward to working with you and have very
much appreciated the support you have given to important natural
resource management issues faced by the Forest Service and bureaus of
the Department of the Interior. A brief look back over the last several
years clearly shows how your personal involvement and that of Senator
Bingaman has provided a focus on managing natural resources today. This
is especially true in the area of protecting the nation's communities
and natural resources from the threat of catastrophic wildfire, a key
focus of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
In fiscal year 2000, the nation was ``awakened'' by the
catastrophic fire that struck the Cerro Grande area of New Mexico. I
use the term ``awakened,'' because factors that made this fire so
serious had been the subject of expert prognostications for several
years. As the serious wildfires continued into Montana and Idaho later
in the 2000 fire season, we were very appreciative of your advocacy for
what was, at the time, referred to as the ``happy forest'' initiative,
through which you proposed significant funding increases for hazardous
fuels reduction. It was out of this emphasis that the National Fire
Plan emerged. As the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
developed plans to restore the health of the nation's forests and
rangelands, the Forest Service Cohesive Strategy was developed. These
efforts later evolved into what is now referred to as the 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan where federal, state,
and local partnerships form a foundation that will lead to improved
protection of natural resources and communities.
Prior to fiscal year 2000, attention was beginning to focus on the
vulnerability natural resources faced from catastrophic wildfire due to
the buildup of hazardous fuels. In the late 1990's the Forest Service
produced risk maps that highlighted what Senator Craig referred to as a
big ``red blob'' in Northern Idaho that represented such a fuels
buildup and serious threat to forest health. Congress responded by
authorizing some focused experiments to restore the health and
productivity of our forests and rangelands by authorizing the Quincy
Library Group activities in northern California and stewardship end
results contracting demonstration authority.
The catastrophic fire seasons of fiscal years 2000 and 2002, the
serious forest health problems highlighted by the risk maps, and the
initiatives to address forest health, represent a cornerstone of what
is now the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. I again want to
thank you for your role in supporting and developing key aspects of the
President's emphasis.
healthy forests initiative
This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative in order to reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires to
communities and the environment. With the release of the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget proposal, a combination of administrative,
legislative, and funding emphases is proposed to address this need. The
Healthy Forests Initiative builds on the fundamentals of multiple use
management principles that have guided the Forest Service since its
formation. These principles embody a balance of conservation and wise
stewardship of natural resources that are valid today in accomplishing
the objectives of the Healthy Forests Initiative.
In the near future, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
will re-propose legislation that supports the Healthy Forests
Initiative. These legislative proposals and detailed attention to
reducing the burden of unnecessary regulatory and administrative
processes that affect management natural resource management, will over
time, lead to federal, state and local forests and rangelands that are
healthy and productive for the nation.
The Healthy Forests Initiative will implement core components of
the National Fire Plan's 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Fundamental to
this effort is the outstanding cooperation that exists between the
Forest Service, Department of the Interior, state governments,
counties, and communities in the collaborative targeting of hazardous
fuels projects to assure the highest priority areas with the greatest
concentration of fuels are treated. This cooperative effort will not
only help protect communities, it can also serve as a model for
reducing the morass of appeals and litigation that too often has
prevented the efficient and cost-effective execution of projects on-
the-ground. As will be discussed in detail by Chief Bosworth, the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget supports the Healthy Forests
Initiative.
president's management agenda
In addition to emphasis on healthy forests, the fiscal year 2004
program for the Forest Service provides strong emphasis on healthy
government through the President's Management Agenda. I will work
closely with the Administration and Congress to assure that the
President's objectives of efficiency, performance, and accountability
are reflected in Forest Service operations.
I would like to congratulate the Forest Service for its significant
accomplishment in obtaining, for the first time, an unqualified audit
opinion on the fiscal year 2002 financial statements. This ``clean''
opinion for the Forest Service and the entire Department of Agriculture
is important, although I must also note that this clean opinion is the
minimum America's taxpayers should expect in the management of federal
funds. The Forest Service will have to work hard to maintain this clean
financial status. It will have to further improve its accounting and
reconciliation functions, as well as significantly streamline its
organization, improve its integration of budget and performance, and
improve the public's access to information through improved technology.
These needs directly respond to the President's Management Agenda.
The Forest Service is making important progress in this area. As
discussed in the Agency's Budget, it is improving its management of
human resources by moving forward on competitive sourcing initiatives,
realigning functions of the headquarters office, and consolidating
financial management operations. The agency is implementing important
e-government reforms, including the new National Fire Plan data base in
cooperation with the Department of the Interior. A new work planning
process that will tie to budget formulation and agency accounting
systems will be operational in fiscal year 2004. A process for
performance monitoring, reporting, and integration with financial
information, called the Performance Accountability System will be
implemented in 2004. Additionally, improved integration that will tie
budget and performance outputs to the goals of the Forest Service
Strategic Plan will be readily displayed in the President's fiscal year
2005 budget, which is now being developed at the field level.
In addition to the broad goals of the President's Management
Agenda, the agency will improve its accountability in Wildland Fire
Management. The Forest Service along with the Department of the
Interior is the most skilled wildland firefighting organization in the
world. However, recent criticism of how the agencies spend funds to
suppress wildfire is of great concern to Chief Bosworth and me. In
response to criticisms that occurred during this past fire season,
Chief Bosworth promptly dispatched an accountability team to review
specific expenses and policies that may have contributed to unnecessary
expenditures. As a result of this and other efforts, new procedures
have been established that will focus on ``least cost suppression''
alternatives in suppressing wildfire and eliminating unnecessary
expenses; establish clearer financial management accountability of
incident commanders and line officers; and provide for improved
internal and external controls and incentives.
Additionally, the Forest Service will fully implement performance
measures in cooperation with the Department of the Interior that
reflect the level of risk reduced by treatments as part of the
interagency effort to increase accountability of Federal wildand fire
management efforts.
In implementing these efficiency measures, it is important to
emphasize that firefighter safety and the protection of communities
will not be compromised. As we focus on an efficient wildland
firefighting organization, we must not lose sight of the fact that fire
suppression often is an expensive operation where major costs will be
most substantially reduced by accomplishing the goals of the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, in closing let me emphasize how important the
President's Budget and legislative agenda for the Forest Service is.
The management of America's natural resources on federal, state, and
local lands has been adversely affected by polarized views on either
the use or conservation of natural resources. For many years we have
been able to find only very limited middle ground. Rural economies have
been adversely affected by the significant reduction in the production
of products and services from these lands. Communities have been
damaged and many more are threatened by the prospect of catastrophic
wildfire. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative, the National Fire
Plan, and legislative initiatives to improve the ability to cooperate
with communities, reduce or eliminate unnecessary procedural process,
and expand contracting authority are important areas of focus for the
Forest Service. With your help the Forest Service can accomplish a
robust performance-based program for the nation's forests and
rangelands, and do so in full collaboration with state governments,
communities and Congress.
I look forward to working with you in implementing the agency's
fiscal year 2004 program and would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Before you proceed, let me just ask,
Secretary Rey, on that last issue, can you tell me what your
current estimate of that kind of property that you just
described as being your recommendation? What is the estimate of
how much of that there is in dollars? How many dollars' worth
of property is that?
Mr. Rey. I will get you a complete list. It is broken down
forest by forest, but I think we are talking somewhere in the
nature of $80 million to $100 million worth of excess
facilities and assets. Obviously, where we have national
forests that are in rapid growth areas like the L.A. Basin, but
the Phoenix Basin as well, there are going to be a lot of those
sorts of facilities. They will be the most valuable as well,
most likely, because of real estate value in the area.
But I want to emphasize we are not talking about parcels of
the national forests. We are talking about isolated tracts
which have little or no value that over the years came into the
Forest Service's ownership. In many cases they are facilities
rather than parcels of land that we are no longer using.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Go ahead, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Just to clarify a little, you are not
talking then about 40 acres off in a forest somewhere that you
might dispose of.
Mr. Rey. No. These areas are all identified during the
normal forest planning process and are listed in each forest
plan as assets that are excess to the needs of the Forest
Service and that do not have any environmental sensitivities
associated with them.
Senator Thomas. You do, from time to time, trade isolated
tracts, I suppose, to make property more put together.
Mr. Rey. We do have authority to do that, yes.
The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Bosworth.
STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF, USDA FOREST SERVICE,
ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM AND BUDGET
ANALYSIS
Mr. Bosworth. Well, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman and
members of the committee, I do appreciate the chance to be here
and the opportunity to talk about the President's budget for
fiscal year 2004 for the Forest Service.
I also would like to point out that I have Hank Kashdan
here with me. He is the Director of Program and Budget Analysis
for the Forest Service.
And I would like to also affirm what Under Secretary Rey
said about how much we appreciate the support that you and
Senator Bingaman have given us for the National Fire Plan and
for the health of the forests and the rangelands. It goes a
long ways to have that kind of assistance and understanding of
the difficult choices that we are making and problems we have
to deal with. So thanks again.
I want to talk about healthy forests and about the National
Fire Plan and our agency's priorities. I will be fairly brief,
but I want to follow up a little bit on the financial
management that Mark Rey mentioned.
We have to be good stewards of the land, but we have also
got to be good stewards of taxpayers' funds. And I am proud of
the fact that the Forest Service was able to achieve an
unqualified audit opinion for the first time in our agency's
history. And I would also like to thank the tremendous amount
of work the Forest Service employees put forth in order for us
to achieve that because we went from a disclaimer to a clean
opinion in 1 year, and that was just unprecedented.
We are going to be looking at what kind of changes we need
to make so that we can sustain that unqualified audit opinion
into the future. It will require a number of changes because
that is just our first step. We have got a lot more work to do
in order to be financially healthy.
A little bit of an overview of the 2004 President's
program: The realities of a flat budget for us make us sort
through an awful lot of different choices. The end result,
though, from my perspective, is that some of the legislative
and some of the regulatory initiatives that we have have to
help stretch these funds further. And that is the important
thing. If we are able to accomplish the goals of the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative, if we are able to
accomplish some of the other objectives that we have, I do
believe that we will be able to take these scarce dollars and
be able to get more work done on the ground where it really
makes a difference. Of course, that is what we are all after.
These initiatives and these key funding emphases are
directly tied to the Healthy Forests Initiative. I have done a
lot of traveling in the 2 years that I have been in this job,
and I have been to the places like the Colorado front and I
have been to New Mexico. I have been to the Blue Mountains in
Oregon. I have been to the Black Hills. I have been to the
Santa Fe area and northern Arizona. And I have seen some of the
fires and I have also talked to people that live near those
areas. And I have also been to the Green Knoll fire, I should
say, in Wyoming. We have just got some huge problems in these
areas and it is not isolated to one or two areas. It is across
the board. And it is not just the West. We have a lot of
problems in the South and the East as well.
The underpinning of the Healthy Forests Initiative is to
reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Hazardous fuels
will be reduced based upon our 10-year Comprehensive Strategy.
We will be working collaboratively with communities based on
criteria for project selection that emphasize the highest
priority areas for treatment. The only way this will work is if
we work together with the communities and with other
landowners, other agencies. So the whole purpose of both the
Healthy Forests Initiative, as well as the Comprehensive
Strategy, is a collaborative approach.
There are also some other areas in our budget. Forest
Stewardship, for example, in the State and private forestry
area: We are proposing an increase there for a competitive
cost-share grant process to support increased small-diameter
utilization and fuels reduction on non-Federal lands so that we
can work together between Federal- and non-Federal landowners.
A significant increase in fire suppression that I hope will
help avoid the chaos of transfers of dollars and preserve
hazardous fuel funds.
There is an increase in research targeted at Sudden Oak
Death and other invasive species, and an additional increase
for fire-related research.
There is an increase in range management that will help
improve the health of our rangelands and help us get on top of
our objectives in having decisions made for allotment
management plans.
An increase for Forest Legacy to help enable the
acquisition of conservation easements of some of these
important tracts.
And there is an array of legislative proposals that will:
streamline the appeals process; provide permanent authority for
stewardship; streamline the execution of highest priority
hazardous fuels reduction projects; expand partnership
authorities; and make existing watershed enhancement authority,
known as the Wyden Amendment, permanent.
Also important is a proposal to make the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program permanent. I believe that the large
majority of people around national forests support that
program.
I would like to just explain a couple of things that came
up in your remarks. We have a chart that I would like to have
put up that displays the costs of wildfires. The chart is
there.
The point here is: on the left it shows the total number of
fires. The blue is 98.2 percent of the fires. The area in pink,
there, is about 1.8 percent of the fires. Now, the point is
that that 1.8 percent of the fires end up--if you go to the
right there--in terms of suppression costs, costing 86 percent
of our suppression costs. That is huge. So 1.8 percent of the
fires cost 86 percent of the suppression costs and 95.2 percent
of the acres burned.
Now, of course, if you could take that small pink slice and
eliminate it, then you would eliminate a huge percentage. We
will never be able to eliminate that but our objective is to
keep these fires small.
I should add that the blue area is what we refer to as
small fires and that pink slice is what we refer to as large
fires, fires that are over 300 acres in size.
The other thing that I would also mention is it came up
about our rehabilitation and restoration dollars being zeroed
out. I think we proposed in the past about $3.6 million in
rehabilitation and restoration funding and we are proposing to
zero that out. Frankly, the reason for that is that we have
huge costs. If you look at the fires of 2000 and the fires of
2001 and the fires of 2002, from a restoration standpoint, it
is a drop in the bucket. The $3.6 million is really a drop in
the bucket.
What we really need to do is look at other funds that we
have which fit very well into restoration and rehabilitation,
reprioritize those, and focus those dollars toward these areas
that are burned. We can use wildlife habitat dollars. There are
soils dollars that we have. There are lots of other kinds of
restoration dollars that we have in our budget every year,
reforestation dollars and timber stand improvement. Those
dollars can be focused onto those areas where we have the
highest priority in terms of restoration in these burned-over
areas. That is what we are about in the Forest Service:
restoring, maintaining, and taking care of these lands.
The Chairman. Why do you not do that?
Mr. Bosworth. That is what we will be doing. My expectation
is that the regional foresters will be taking those dollars and
legitimately focusing those onto those areas where we have the
needs, particularly in those areas where we have had large
fires.
So that is pretty much what I wanted to say in my opening
remarks. I do believe it is an honor to be Chief of the Forest
Service during these exciting times. I thank you for your help
in solving some of these problems. I am looking forward to
working with you and sorting through this fiscal year 2004
program. So I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bosworth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, USDA Forest Service
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2004
Budget for the Forest Service. I am accompanied by Mark Rey, Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and Hank Kashdan, Director of Program and Budget
Analysis for the Forest Service. It is a great privilege to be here
today. I want to affirm what Under Secretary Rey said about how much we
appreciate your support, and that of Senator Bingaman, for the National
Fire Plan and the health of our forests and rangelands.
overview
Teddy Roosevelt's rich legacy includes the Forest Service, and he
once observed that people should make few promises and then keep them.
Our agency, which will celebrate its 99th anniversary during the 2004
budget year, has made more than a few promises. I am often asked about
my vision for the Forest Service. The Forest Service must be viewed as
the world's leader in natural resource management by living up to
commitments, efficiently using and accounting for the taxpayer funds
that are entrusted to us, and treating people with respect. My vision
as we approach the centennial is to heed TR's advice. We are an agency
that keeps its promises.
The fiscal year 2004 President's budget request for the Forest
Service is $4.8 billion, $121 million greater than the FY 2003
President's Budget. The FY 2004 Budget provides funding to reduce the
risk of wildland fire to communities and the environment by
implementing the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. In addition,
it provides funds to enhance the ability of the Forest Service to meet
multiple demands. The major departure from fiscal year 2003 is an
increase of $184 million for wildland fire suppression and additional
increases in funds for forest and rangeland research, forest
stewardship, forest legacy, range management, and hazardous fuels
reduction.
This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative in order to help reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires
to communities and the environment. The fiscal year 2004 budget
proposal contains a combination of legislative and funding priorities
the President feels are necessary to address this need, as signaled in
his State of the Union message. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds
on the fundamentals of multiple use management principles that have
guided the Forest Service since its formation. These principles embody
a balance of conservation and balanced approach to the use of natural
resources that are valid today in working with local communities,
States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.
accountability
In my testimony today, I want to discuss in detail how the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget and accompanying legislative
initiatives will improve the health of our forests and rangelands, but
first let me focus on the agency's effort to improve its financial
accountability.
When I began my career, the Forest Service was viewed as a model
federal agency, accomplishing our mission for the American people. I am
pleased to share with you today a stride that takes us closer to the
reputation of a generation ago. Through the extraordinary efforts of
our employees across the nation, we and our USDA counterparts have
achieved an unqualified audit opinion for 2002. This is an important
step in a continuing effort to fulfill promises previous Chiefs and I
have made to get the Forest Service financial house in order. To
progress from no opinion to a clean opinion in just one year is
unprecedented. This unqualified audit opinion sets the basis for our
next steps, which include additional financial reforms to efficiently
consolidate financial management personnel; improve the effectiveness
of the financial management system as part of the funds control and
budget execution process; and improve the quality of account
reconciliation. It will take as much work to keep that clean financial
opinion as it did to earn it. But, this important accomplishment of a
clean audit opinion demonstrates the progress we are making in keeping
our word.
process predicament
When I met with you a year ago, gridlock and analysis paralysis
directly affected our ability to deliver on many promises: to protect
communities from catastrophic wildfire, to provide a sustainable flow
of forest and grassland products, and to sustain the landscapes used
and enjoyed by the American people. These problems still exist, but the
Forest Service has taken the initiative to deal with this process
predicament within its authority by proposing regulations and policies.
I believe we are on the road to success. We proposed a revised planning
rule to provide a more readily understood planning process--one that
the agency can implement within anticipated budgets. We proposed new
processes to simplify documentation under NEPA for management
activities that do not significantly affect the environment--small,
routine projects that are supported by local communities, such as
salvaging dead and dying trees or removing insect infested or diseased
trees. We propose to work with you and the American people to keep our
promise that these measures are about sustainable land stewardship.
president's management agenda
The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a
comprehensive strategy to achieve the objectives of the President's
Management Agenda. Today, I'll highlight a few of the significant
efforts we're making to improve Forest Service management and
performance. In the competitive sourcing arena, we will conduct public/
private competitions during fiscal year 2004, identifying the most
efficient, effective way to accomplish work for the American people, as
identified in the Agency's Efficiency Plan which has been submitted to
the Administration. Our e-government energies will move beyond web
information delivery into four important areas: incident planning and
management, recreation services and information, electronic planning
record, and the federal and non-federal assistance process. We are
instituting critical oversight controls to keep wildfire suppression
costs as low as possible while protecting communities and resources and
improve our methods of reporting wildland fire suppression expenses.
Several streamlining efforts are underway to reduce indirect costs and
better examine the role and structure of various Forest Service
organizational levels.
An element of the President's Management Agenda concerning budget
and performance initiative, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
analysis provides a standardized set of performance management criteria
that provides a consistent evaluation process to identify areas of
performance and budget integration they should improve. In FY 2004, the
Wildland Fire Management and Capital Improvement and Maintenance
programs of the Forest Service were selected to participate in the
first round of assessments using the PART. The PART analyses for these
programs indicated that funds need to be better targeted within the
Wildland Fire Management program while the annual performance measures
of Capital Improvement and Maintenance program inadequately linked to
ongoing management initiatives aimed at addressing the maintenance
backlog.
rangeland management
The President's budget provides a $7.3 million increase that
supports a significant Forest Service promise--to make progress on
completing environmental analysis on national forest rangelands. This
emphasis will provide for a 30 percent increase in grazing allotments
operating under completed environmental analysis. It will also enhance
our capability to manage livestock and support communities where
rangelands are an integral part of the economy and way of life.
forest service research
Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean
water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and many other values. Key to
sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying
integrated resource management systems based on the best science
available. A $9.4 million increase in forest and rangeland research is
a valuable addition to our program. Some of the increase will support
research and development tools essential to prevent, detect, control,
and monitor invasive species and restore impacted ecosystems. Other
emphasis includes a pine bark beetle program that looks at new
management strategies, better utilization of bark beetle trees, and
developing additional treatment options for managers and landowners.
Programs to identify new biological control agents and treatment
methodology and to develop integrated pest management technology for
land managers will also be accelerated. The President's Budget
recognizes the need for research to support the full range of
challenges faced by land and resource managers because challenges don't
stop at National Forest System boundaries. Addressing the issues
associated with America's forests and grasslands--including hazardous
fuels, protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, invasive
species, and pathogens--doesn't depend upon who owns the ground.
Keeping this promise goes beyond the basic and applied science
functions of research. We also need to bridge the gap between research
findings and results on the ground. The request reflects the importance
of technology transfer, internally in the Forest Service and externally
through our university and State and Private Forestry program partners.
state and private forestry
Through close cooperation with State Foresters and other partners,
our State and Private Forestry Program provides assistance to
landowners and resource managers to help sustain the Nation's forests
and protect communities and the environment from wildland fire. The
President's budget contains an increase of over $38 million for these
programs. While most of the forest health management, cooperative fire
protection, and cooperative forestry programs continue at fiscal year
2003 levels, forest stewardship and the forest legacy program reflect
an increase. A $16 million increase for forest stewardship supports the
objectives of the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Initiative,
and the Forestry Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. The increase will
strengthen our partnerships through a competitive cost-share program,
leveraging the effectiveness of federal funds to reduce hazardous
fuels, improve invasive species management, and enhance forest
production from state and private lands. This increase will support
increased private landowners' investment in the management of small
diameter and underutilized forest products. In the forest legacy
program, the President's budget proposes a $21 million increase to
conserve environmentally important private forests through partnerships
with States and willing landowners. The budget will support
partnerships with up to ten additional States that have not previously
participated in the program. We expect total conservation of more than
200,000 acres, benefiting wildlife habitat, water quality, and
recreation.
the next 100 years for america's national forests and grasslands
Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest
levels represent the greatest threat to the National Forests. However
loudly voiced or strongly held these views may be, they are not
accurate for the reality of management of the National Forests in the
next 100 years. This year's budget request supports a program to offer
two billion board feet including salvage sales.
The request addresses two key long-term challenges to America's
National Forests and Grasslands: the build up of hazardous fuels and
the spread of invasive species that seriously impair ecosystems. In
August of last year, the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative (HFI). Its objectives include streamlining the decision-
making process and continuing our long-term commitment of working with
communities to achieve a meaningful level of public involvement.
We are committed to our continued partnership with those that use
and enjoy America's National Forests as well as those that value them
as part of our nation, no matter where they live. Although we have made
progress, we must do more. Last year, the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior proposed new legislation to authorize permanent
stewardship contracting authority, expedited review, hazardous fuels
reduction projects, and address a burdensome administrative appeal
process. President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Healthy Forests
during the State of the Union Address. We are committed to working with
you as you consider the proposals of the Secretaries.
Hazardous Fuels
The presence of large amounts of hazardous fuels poses a tremendous
threat to people and to public and private natural resources. The
Budget increases emphasis on protecting communities and property from
the effects of these combustible fuels--catastrophic wildfire. The
budget supports the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation
Plan, developed in close collaboration with governors, communities, and
the Department of the Interior. Through performance goals contained in
the implementation plan, we will implement hazardous fuels reduction
projects, improve fire suppression planning, expand forest product
utilization, protect lands from fire related spreads of invasive
species, and undertake key fire research.
The budget contains an increase of nearly $184 million for fire
suppression. Wildland fire suppression costs are increasing and are
having significant impact upon a wide number of Forest Service
programs. The cost increases are due a number of reasons, including
costs associated with national mobilization, wildland fire suppression
in areas of high hazardous fuel loads, large aircraft and helicopter
operations, and the increasing complexity of suppression in the
wildland-urban interface. To address these increasing costs, the Budget
proposes that the Forest Service and the Department of Interior (DOI):
review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation resources;
establish a review team to evaluate and develop cost containment
strategies; and revise procedures to improve reporting of fire
suppression spending. Together with other actions, this should enable
the Forest Service to significantly improve our ability to fight
wildfires without the major impacts to other programs we experienced
during last year's fire fund transfers. Last year we kept our promise
by aggressively fighting wildfire--long after funds appropriated
specifically for fire suppression were gone and catching more than 99
percent of fires the way they all start, small. The request includes a
renewed emphasis on up-to-date fire management plans and wildland fire
use fires.
Accomplishing performance objectives under the National Fire Plan
is also consistent with the President's Management Agenda. Reducing
hazardous fuels, protecting against fire-related invasive species, and
targeting adequate resources to suppress wildfire promotes improved
health of Federal, State, Tribal, and local lands as well as enhancing
the economies of natural resource based communities. I again urge all
of us--cooperators and skeptics--to keep a focus on what we leave on
the land, not what we take from it. Effective, integrated hazardous
fuels reduction can leave us with clean, healthy water, improved
wildlife habitat, and more satisfying recreation experiences.
Invasives
Invasive species, especially weeds, pose a tremendous threat to
forests and grasslands. Whether kudzu or leafy spurge or knapweed or
oriental bittersweet vine, these unwanted invasives take hold and out-
compete native species, changing the look and structure of entire
ecosystems. Our response to these threats needs to embrace an
integrated approach. In the coming year we will improve integration of
efforts among the National Forest System, Research, and State and
Private Forestry, and other USDA agencies.
legislative proposals
The FY 2004 Budget contains several legislative proposals that
significantly advance common sense forest health efforts that prevent
the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires and move past ``process
gridlock'' to improve agency land management efficiency. Four
proposals, in particular, promote the President's Healthy Forests
Initiative by reducing hazardous fuels; permanently authorizing
stewardship end results contracting; repealing the Appeals Reform Act;
and revising standards of judicial review in decisions that relate to
activities necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland
ecosystems.
Hazardous Fuels
As mentioned earlier, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior proposed legislation that authorizes emergency fuels reduction
projects in priority areas of federal forests outside wilderness areas.
This will allow timely treatment of forests at risk of catastrophic
fire and those that pose the greatest risk to people, communities, and
the environment. Our top priorities will include the wildland-urban
interface, municipal watersheds, areas affected by disease, insect
activity, windthrow, and areas subject to catastrophic reburn. We would
select projects through collaborative processes, consistent with the
10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan.
Fundamental to better implementation of core components of the
National Fire Plan's 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy is the outstanding
cooperation that exists between the Forest Service, Department of the
Interior, State governments, counties, and communities in the
collaborative targeting of hazardous fuels projects to assure the
highest priority areas with the greatest concentration of fuels are
treated.
Stewardship End Results Contracting
The complex patchwork of authorities and agreements associated with
national forest management often has provided significant disincentives
for private entities to engage in forest health restoration work. The
fiscal year 1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as
amended, authorizes the Forest Service to enter into 84 stewardship end
result pilot projects. The stewardship contracting authority allows the
Forest Service to offset the cost of forest health work performed by
the private contractor against the value of the forest products removed
by the contractor. This goods-for-services approach to management has
worked effectively in pilot projects. The concept embodies a promising
tool to accomplish management goals without expanding current
appropriations. Current authority will expire on September 30, 2004. I
hope Congress will expand and make permanent this tool as proposed by
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior.
Repeal the Appeals Reform Act
The Forest Service is subject to procedural requirements that are
not required of any other Federal agency. To address this issue, the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to
repeal Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (commonly known as the ``Appeals
Reform Act,'') that imposed these requirements that I believe limit our
ability to work collaboratively with the public.
Standards of Judicial Review
To ensure that courts consider the public interest in avoiding
irreparable harm to ecosystems and that the public interest in avoiding
the short-term effects of such action is outweighed by the public
interest in avoiding long-term harm to such ecosystems, the Secretaries
of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to establish
revised rules for courts in decisions that relate to activities
necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems.
The President's Budget also includes legislative proposals to:
Expand or clarify existing partnership authorities;
Permanently authorize the Recreation Fee Demonstration
program;
Allow for the transfer of Forest Legacy titles to willing
State governments;
Promote watershed restoration and enhancement agreements;
Authorize a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund;
Restore eligibility for State and Private Forestry Programs
of the three Pacific island entities in ``Compacts of Free
Association"; and
Eliminate requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 that duplicate the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
conclusion
We are fulfilling key promises in re-establishing sound management
throughout the Forest Service. I want the Forest Service to be an
organization people trust and once again point to as an example of good
government. Earning this trust means becoming good stewards of not only
public land and natural resources, but of public dollars, of public
trust. We know the work is not complete--there are still many
opportunities like large fire cost management, integrating information
systems, and making organizational changes in administrative support
operations-but we're making good progress.
Traditional functional and program boundaries do not serve us
well--they get in the way of our ability to keep our word. I am
committed to putting more effort into integrating our programs and
becoming better partners with people interested in leveraging our work.
The President's Healthy Forest Initiative exemplifies an integrated
approach to problems that affect not just national forests or national
grasslands, but America's forests and America's rangelands. It is an
opportunity for our private land neighbors, for research, for partner
agencies, for everyone concerned about America's forests and
grasslands.
Let me reiterate the deep honor I feel in being Chief of the Forest
Service in this challenging time and the equally deep sense of
obligation I feel to keep our promises to the American people. I enlist
your continued support and look forward to working with you toward that
end.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith, would you like to make a few early
observations? The other Senators had a chance to do that, and
then, Senator Wyden, we will let you comment for a minute.
Senator Smith?
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I had a longer statement. I
will include it in the record, if I may.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership in convening this
hearing to examine the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request
for the Forest Service. I also want to thank Undersecretary Rey and
Chief Bosworth for being here today, and for their concerted effort to
make forest management policy meet the immediate and long-term needs of
the land, the environment and our communities.
Let me begin by drawing your attention to the Rough and Ready mill
in Cave Junction, Oregon. This mill is one of the largest family-wage
employers in the Illinois Valley, an area which was on the verge of
evacuation during the Biscuit Fire last summer. It is also the last
mill in Josephine County. In December, the owners of Rough and Ready
announced that because of a shortage of logs, they would be closing
their doors and laying off their employees. In less than a month their
doors will close, and with a bitter taste of irony. Three miles from
the Rough and Ready mill, lies the site of the Biscuit Fire, where over
1 billion board feet of salvageable timber lies outside of wilderness
areas and other set-asides. The Forest Service tells us that the
environmental impact statements for rehabilitation and salvage of the
Biscuit Fire will not be prepared until later this year, and appeals
and litigation will likely push projects into 2004. This is totally
unacceptable.
Over the past decade, over one hundred and sixty mills have been
closed in Oregon and over 30,000 jobs were lost. Let me tell you now
that I cannot allow this mill and its workers to be drawn into that
statistic, and into the failed forest policies that this Administration
has vowed to correct.
Tomorrow, mill workers and community members are going to be
holding a protest in front of the Forest Service office in Cave
Junction. They will be calling on all of us, executive and legislative
branches, to act.
I believe that the Forest Service is doing all that it can, within
existing law and statute, to rehabilitate the Biscuit Fire and deliver
volume wherever possible and appropriate. The Administration's
legislative proposals and administrative actions reflect this at the
national level, and I thank you for your hard work. I would, however,
ask that you clarify how your funding priorities are consistent with
your stated management priorities in the Pacific Northwest. Last year,
the Forest Service proposed to reduce Region 6's funding by 12%. In
light of the catastrophic wildfires Oregon experienced, and the
Administration's goal to fully implement the Northwest Forest Plan, I
trust that Region 6's funding will be enhanced in Fiscal Year 2004, not
further reduced. I am also wary of your proposal to zero out the
Pacific Northwest Assistance Program, which is designed to aid
communities affected by reductions in harvest due to the economic
impact of the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan. While it may be
appropriate to phase out this program once a sustainable and
predictable level of volume is delivered under the Northwest Forest
Plan, it is clearly premature at this time.
On another note, let me mention that I strongly support the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the proposals contained in
the FY04 budget request. It is a well-balanced approach and it deserves
quick passage by this Congress before the West is again enshrouded in
smoke. But the Healthy Forests Initiative will neither be constructive
nor fiscally feasible if we continue losing the infrastructure needed
to process thinned and salvaged trees. This needs to be realized
immediately and I ask that you commit today to dedicating the needed
resources to keep the folks in Cave Junction employed in the short term
so that they can contribute in the long-term to balanced forest
management.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding today's hearing and for
your firm commitment to addressing forest health issues during the
108th Congress.
Senator Smith. I have some questions as well if this is the
appropriate time to ask them.
The Chairman. We will get to you on the questions.
Senator Wyden, did you have some opening remarks?
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to say how much I appreciate your making this
a priority issue. As you know, each summer, the West faces the
prospect of burning up, and we simply cannot afford to turn
these rural communities into sacrifice zones. There is a
tremendous backlog of work that needs to be done to promote
forest health.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I thought we came very close
last session in terms of working out a bipartisan effort.
Senator Smith was involved, as were Senator Domenici and
Senator Feinstein. In my view, Mark Rey was extremely
cooperative in terms of working with us, and we have to
continue in this manner.
I would just make one substantive point and then wait for
questions, Mr. Chairman. I think that what the Chief is talking
about in terms of an collaborative approach on hazardous fuels
is very important. But suffice it to say we are getting a lot
of flack at home that this is not being accompanied by
sufficient environmental standards. I think if we are going to
find the common ground--and we got very, very close last
session in my view--we have to couple that collaborative
approach with some concrete environmental standards. I will ask
some questions about that later.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you very much for making this a
priority. We have to get this done early in this session. This
is simply a matter of life and death for westerners.
The Chairman. Senator, I want to just make this observation
to tell you the kind of problem I think we have as an
authorizing committee. I was telling Senator Bingaman on the
omnibus bill, I do not think we know as of now the extent to
which this committee's authorizing jurisdiction was infringed
upon in an appropriation bill. I do not use that word with any
anger or recrimination, but it does seem that we have to decide
whether we are authorized some of these controversial areas of
not. If we are not and if we cannot, then obviously somebody
will do them for us.
On the other hand, everybody is so busy that if you talk
about a forest bill that would address these issues, the kind
you are speaking of, the kind that was addressed in the omnibus
bill by Senator Burns with reference to stewardship and
partnerships, when you talk about fitting them in an agenda up
here, it becomes almost imponderable how you are going to get
it done.
But I told Senator Craig I would like very much to put
together a forest bill this year. Obviously, every time that is
done, the issue of logging, no logging, some logging comes up,
and it is important that that be looked at. But there are so
many other issues where we ought to be helping them do a better
job. They have expressed a couple of them here today.
We will start with money, seeing whether we can entice the
Budget Committee to give us more money for the kinds of things
they have been unable to fund. After that, I would hope that
parallel to the energy bill, we could start putting together
the fruits of some hearings on the forest problems in the
country. There are a myriad of them without question.
I have maybe 10 or 15 that I am going to hold and submit at
the end, but I would like to open with just a discussion with
you.
It seems to me the Secretary mentioned the activities that
occurred on the floor. It was also in an appropriation bill,
and a very large bill was introduced--I was the prime sponsor
of it--called ``happy forests.'' It was for an amendment. It
was something like $650 million or $700 million for taking care
of our forests which were then at the peak of fire destruction
and all the other things. We split that between Ag and
Interior, and as I recall, we attached some very important
amendments to that. We had to work very hard with the Clinton
administration to get them in.
That bill, amendment, provided for an inventory by the
Departments of the properties that were to be determined as
dangerous or perilous because they were close to the forests
and could be part of what you have alluded to today, the urban
interface, which is apt to bring very serious and costly fires.
We had some problems with that, but ultimately, it was agreed
that that be done.
Is it fair to say that the areas have been identified that
are urban areas of danger because of their proximity? Has that
been done, Mr. Bosworth?
Mr. Bosworth. About last, maybe June or July, I believe, we
completed the first effort, working with the State foresters
and others, to identify communities at risk. There are some
problems with the list. As you would expect, in some cases you
can end up with every community in some States being at risk,
and then in other States it is approached a little bit
differently.
We have an agreement with the State foresters. The National
Association of Counties, the Department of the Interior, and
the Forest Service to work in a collaborative way now to
establish criteria for communities--and a little more
structured criteria--that would be applied State by State in an
interagency way to identify where the priorities would be for
doing fuels treatment across the landscape around these
communities. So it is a good landscape approach. It is
collaborative and it has taken sort of the next step from
identifying these communities.
The Chairman. Well, it would seem to me that either that is
meaningful or it is not. When you get these lists, it seems
like it naturally lends itself to some prioritization. There
must be some that are highly at risk, some that are not quite
that much, but we have to get on with solving some of them.
Mr. Bosworth. The way that this would work is that we would
identify those that are high, those that are moderate, and
those that are low so that we can have a better way of using
these criteria, have a better way of being consistent across
the country in how we are applying this so that we can get our
focus on those highest priority, most important areas.
The Chairman. Well, I just want to ask about one and give
you an observation regarding what I think you could help us
with. Santa Fe is one, and obviously the watershed in Santa Fe
must be in a high-risk area because if that burns, the water
supply for this city goes. It is not a question of did I dream
this up as something we need. It is right there. They have a
lake. The lake yields the water supply, and the forest is right
there. That has been a very slow process of fixing that. I want
to ask you where we are on that and what is going to be done.
But in a general way, it would seem to me to be important
to us that you tell us for the record which of these risk areas
that you would like to rehabilitate have been delayed. If they
have been delayed for undue lengths of time, I would like you
to tell us which ones are unduly delayed and why. If they are
delayed because of lawsuits, because of environmental
contentions that the plans are not right, just give us a number
of them and the delays and tell us why that is occurring. We
continue to hear stories of why it is delayed. I think it would
be good to get an official list, if you could do that, of those
that have been delayed with your reasoning as to why, lack of
money, cannot get it done because of this, that, or the other.
Maybe roadless areas has been a problem in some. Whichever it
is, would you tell us that at your leisure for the record?
Mr. Bosworth. First, I will respond to your question about
the Santa Fe watershed and then I will try to respond to those
specific areas.
We are working in the Santa Fe watershed now. We issued a
contract in September 2002 for $400,000 to treat about 700 more
acres. One of the difficulties in the Santa Fe watershed is
that it is so critical that we want to make sure that we do not
get more fuel down without treating it than what we can treat
in 1 year. In other words, as we are doing the mechanical
thinning or the thinning with chainsaws to get the small trees
down, we need to either burn those or move them out so that we
do not have an over-accumulation which would increase the
hazard rather than decrease it. So they are working at that at
about a 700-acre-a-year rate because they believe that that is
about the amount that they can be sure that they can clean up.
We would like to be able to move along at a faster rate, but it
is pretty important to make sure that they stay up with that.
It took a long time to work our way through negotiations to
try to avoid appeals and litigation. We, in the end, did not
avoid the appeals and we worked our way through that process.
Another problem with the Santa Fe watershed is that it is
expensive. It is about $1,150 an acre. Our average for fuels
treatment nationwide is about $120 an acre. So you can see that
it is about 10 times more. Now, it is in a wildland-urban
interface, a municipal watershed which adds cost to it. It is
very costly and there are a lot of reasons for that. Part of it
is the difficulty. Part of it is that you negotiate away. If
you negotiate enough, you add costs for mitigation to where it
gets very expensive.
Now, regarding the areas around the country that we view as
high-priority areas, I cannot sit here at this moment and list
those out and say how they have been delayed, but we will pull
together some information and get it to you.
I can say that the purpose of the Healthy Forests
Initiative--and some of the things we have been doing
administratively and through regulatory proposals--is to try to
help simplify those processes so we can shorten the period of
time that it takes to make a decision and get more of the
dollars on the ground doing fuels treatment work and do that in
a collaborative way, work closely with the communities up front
and get the job done. We have to be able to do it that way and
we have to speed it up if we are going to be able to make a
difference.
Now, the fiscal year 2003 projects that we plan on doing
will be identified in May, and then we will also be very happy
to share that with the committee as well when we get those
identified.
Mr. Rey. We can also share sort of a running tally of how
project appeals and litigation is going during the course of a
year. I think it is fair to say that we are seeing some
increases in appellate and litigation activity as we are moving
into areas that heretofore we have not done treatments in.
Whether they are in the wildland-urban interface or not does
not seem to be a factor in whether we are seeing appeals or
lawsuits being filed.
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. My impression is, at least in this last
year, that part of the delay that you experienced in getting
this thinning accomplished in some of these wildland-urban
interfaces--in fact, right in the Santa Fe watershed--some of
that delay was because of the need to borrow funds to do fire
fighting. I remember, Chief Bosworth, we spoke about this. You
arranged to shift some funding over so that the work could go
forward and an effort could be made there in Santa Fe. Shortly
after that, my impression was that everything had to go on hold
because the money then had to be shifted out of that account
and used to fight fires. So it was all delayed. I think they
are supposed to get started tomorrow or something instead of
last September.
Am I right that part of the problem is this constant need
that you have had each year to shift funds in and out of these
accounts to fight the fires?
Mr. Bosworth. It is correct that in fiscal year 2002, when
we had all those fires, we continually transferred dollars from
other accounts to fight fires. The way we prioritize it, one of
the last places we wanted to take dollars was from fuels
treatment funds. In the end, we transferred about $20 million
out of fuels treatment into fire suppression. So out of the
total, that was not a huge amount, but it did delay some
projects that we would have gotten going otherwise.
Senator Bingaman. I am not clear, and maybe you said this
in your discussion with Senator Domenici and I just did not
understand it. What is your plan to fix this problem so that
you do not have this drill every year where you are taking
money out of these other accounts in order to fight fires? The
budget proposal you have given us now, if we enact it, ensures
that you are going to have to do that again.
Mr. Rey. If we have a difficult fire year.
I think in last year's budget proposal, we proposed a
government-wide emergency account for contingencies like this.
Senator Bingaman. Is that what you are suggesting to us
now? Are you suggesting anything to us?
Mr. Rey. I think what we are suggesting now is we would
like to sit down with you all and with the Budget Committee to
see if something like that can work so that we do not have a
continued rotation of accounts.
Senator Bingaman. Yes, I think that would be a priority
because I think clearly it must be frustrating to you to have
to interrupt other activities that you believe are important
like thinning activities in these wildland-urban interface
areas because you have had to take money to do something else
which was not adequately funded.
Let me ask about the roadless rule. That has been upheld at
the appellate court level. Is the Forest Service proceeding to
implement that, or is there an effort underway to modify that?
Or what is happening with the roadless rule?
Mr. Rey. The roadless rule is still the subject of a
considerable amount of litigation in numerous judicial
districts. We, in fact, earlier this week, argued a case in
Wyoming where we can expect a decision shortly.
In the Ninth Circuit, the rule was enjoined. Upon appeal to
the Ninth Circuit, the circuit court reversed the district
court opinion. The plaintiff in that case, which is the State
of Idaho, has filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit for en
banc review, which means all the judges in the circuit review
the three-judge panel's decision. I guess everyone is waiting
to see whether that will be granted.
Senator Bingaman. What is the position that the
administration is taking in that litigation?
Mr. Rey. In that litigation, we defended at the district
court level and did not participate at the circuit court level,
in the interest of moving on to develop a different roadless
rule which we are still working on and hope to propose within
the next couple of months.
In the interim, we have refrained from entering roadless
areas except and unless an entry has been approved by the
Chief, and I do not believe you have approved any to date.
Senator Bingaman. So you anticipate in the next couple of
months we will get a proposal or there will be a new, modified
roadless rule that you will issue.
Mr. Rey. That is what we are working on right now. I am
guessing that the litigation will continue simultaneously with
that.
Senator Bingaman. Let me ask about the stewardship
contract? I do not know if I am running over my time. I do not
guess we are using the timer today.
The Chairman. Just kind of guessing.
Senator Bingaman. Okay.
The Chairman. You are getting close.
Senator Bingaman. Okay, let me ask one more question. Then
I will desist.
On forest stewardship contracts, Senator Domenici referred
to the fact that there is substantial language in this latest
appropriation package, which we are hopefully going to get to
see before we vote on it, that relates to stewardship
contracting. My understanding is that that was a demonstration
program we put into place in 1998, and the idea was we would
see how it worked.
Now the new language, as I am led to believe, makes it a
10-year program and eliminates the emphasis which was
previously there on non-commercial contracting, non-commercial
timber activity.
I would ask your advice to this committee on what should we
be doing now. It does not make a lot of sense to be continuing
to kid ourselves that we are having a demonstration program
once we have legislated that it is for 10 years. The
administration supports this presumably or it would not be in
that bill.
Mr. Rey. That is correct. The demonstration program has, in
our mind, served its purpose. There have been two reviews of
the demonstration pilot projects to date: one, an internal
review by the Forest Service, another by an outside party, the
Pinchot Institute, which is a not-for-profit environmental
think tank. In both cases I think what we found was that there
is much to be gained by broadening the stewardship authority,
making it a permanent authority, and broadening it so that the
Interior agencies have the same opportunity to use it as a
management tool. That is why we recommended making the
authority permanent, or at least longer term, last fall when we
sent up a legislative proposal as part of the President's
Healthy Forests Initiative.
We still look at this primarily as a way of using new
contract tools to do work that would not be done on a
commercial basis because most of the material that has to be
thinned out of these forests is not of commercial value. So I
do not see us changing the emphasis from where it is now in the
pilot projects.
I think that the challenge for us, should you all pass this
legislation, is going to be to reach out and involve as many
people as possible in moving this project forward from a pilot
project to one that we hope will allow us to do fuels
treatments at a more landscape level.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas, you are next.
Senator Thomas. I know that situations are all different,
but sometimes it seems a little bit of a paradox to be talking
about thinning and fire suppression and at the same time
reducing commercial reductions. How do you react to that?
Mr. Rey. Well, I guess the distinction that I make is that
the purpose of the President's initiative goes to the question
of what kind of forest we want to have, not what we take out of
it. And the kind of forest we want to have, by virtue of what
we are trying to accomplish under this initiative, is one that
is fire resistant and ecologically sustainable where we can
restore fire to a natural role in the ecosystem. If there is
commercial material that is removed from the forest, incidental
to that purpose, then we ought to use it, and I think we have
been fairly forthright about saying that.
Separately, we also believe that there is a role at some
level, within proper environmental constraints, for the
national forests to contribute wood products to the Nation's
needs. Those two are not always going to square up in the same
place at the same time.
Senator Thomas. No, I understand. But it does seem like in
many cases thinning of commercial-size timber is a movement
toward fire suppression and the more you can get that done, as
an income feature and being done in the private sector, it
seems to me that makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Rey. We can reduce the cost to the taxpayer of doing
the forest health work that needs to be done. But the primary
objective has to be----
Senator Thomas. I understand what the objective is, but
there are several ways to get to an objective sometimes.
Mr. Rey. Right, exactly.
Senator Thomas. You indicate that you are going to make
some changes in the forest regulations which will shorten the
process and save $300 million. Generally, what are you seeking
to do in that planning process to make it more efficient?
Mr. Rey. What we have proposed so far are some changes to
the way we comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Endangered Species Act. With regard to the National
Environmental Policy Act, we and the Department of the Interior
are proposing two ``categorical exclusions'' to cover certain
kinds of fuel treatment and post-fire restoration work. Those
were out for public comment and review. The public comment
period on those closed at the end of January, January 31. And
our cursory review of the record so far showed substantial
support for what we had in mind.
In addition to that change, we have undertaken 15 case
studies for environmental assessments to see if we can do
environmental assessments for those projects that require
additional environmental analysis on a more timely basis.
The underlying philosophy here, if I can just digress for a
minute, is that under NEPA, you have three levels of
environmental analysis. For routine projects that you do time
and time again--where you know what the environmental
consequences could be with general certainty--you can use a
``categorical exclusion.'' It is an instrument under NEPA that
is allowed.
For projects that are a little more complicated, or that
you are uncertain as to the environmental consequences, you
have to do some additional analysis: an ``environmental
assessment.''
An environmental assessment is supposed to be a relatively
straightforward and brief analysis that is supposed to lead to
one of two conclusions: Either A, that there is no significant
environmental impact, in which case you move on and do the
project; or B, there is a question or there is potentially some
significant environmental impact, in which case you do an
``environmental impact statement.''
Our problem is that over time, over the 30 years we have
been working with NEPA, our environmental assessments have been
getting bigger and longer and more complex because, in part,
some of our people have been trying to do environmental
assessments as if they were environmental impact statements or,
in some cases, even to avoid environmental impact statements.
And that is not what you are supposed to do with an
environmental assessment.
So the point of these 15 models, these case studies in the
field, is to see if we can get back to doing simple,
straightforward, 20- or 30-page environmental assessments
instead of 200- and 300-page environmental assessments.
Hopefully, most of those will lead to a finding of no
significant environmental impact. For the ones that do, then we
will do an EIS, which is what the statute originally
envisioned. But for the vast majority of cases, we should be
able to proceed with a project under a much simpler
environmental assessment. We think that can probably cut our
analysis costs from $100,000 a project to maybe closer to
$20,000 or $25,000 a project. So those are the NEPA changes.
We are also looking at some changes under the Endangered
Species Act as well.
Senator Thomas. That is great. All of us, of course, want
to make sure that the environment is protected. I remember when
Chief Thomas was here when I first came to the Senate. We
talked a little bit about making sure that we were not managing
because of the threat of lawsuits, that we were managing under
the law and doing the best job and not because some group was
going to sue us if they did not do it their way. So good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I think Senator Smith was here.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for coming to this committee.
I had an opening statement that talked about some of the
continuing distress of people in rural communities in the State
of Oregon. There is a particular mill there, Rough and Ready
Lumber. It is the last mill left in Josephine County. Over the
last decade, 160 mills in Oregon have closed and over 30,000
Oregonians have been laid off of work.
The irony is that this Rough and Ready mill is just a few
miles away from the Biscuit Fire, and they have announced their
closure in April because they literally have no timber. I am
wondering if you can tell me if anything can be done to
expedite salvage at the Biscuit Fire that can help keep 30
Oregonians in work.
Mr. Bosworth. I would be happy to discuss that. After the
Biscuit Fire, obviously there have been a lot of national
forest timber that has been killed. Also, there is damage to
watersheds, to wildlife habitat. We believe that the cost of
the Biscuit Fire for fiscal year 2003--we need to redirect some
of the work into the Biscuit Fire area from a restoration
standpoint.
Now, they are also looking at how much of the timber volume
can be salvaged. It would be a part of that effort to
rehabilitate.
We are doing the analysis, the assessment, currently to
figure out what should be done on the national forest portion
of that. Some of the things that we are proposing through
administrative changes, through the Healthy Forests
Initiative--well, some are not even part of the Healthy Forests
Initiative--such as salvage of small areas, using the
categorical exclusion, 250 acres--I think is what our proposal
is. When those are finalized, those will help with this kind of
project where we will be able to do the analysis quicker and we
will be able to get the work on the ground done quicker. That
would be one example.
The region has redirected some of their dollars to the
forest in the Biscuit Fire area so that they can do the
assessment and get it done as quickly as we can.
I have to say, though, that part of the frustration that I
have, and that many Forest Service people have, is that we do
not have the processes in place yet--and the systems--working
to get these projects going at the rate we would like to. We
are still putting an awful lot of money, time, and effort into
doing paperwork.
I am a supporter of doing analysis, the appropriate level
of analysis, to make sure that we do the right things. I
strongly support the need to work with the community to make
sure that they understand and are a part of the decisions on
what needs to be done there. That is how the region is trying
to approach the Biscuit fire.
Mr. Rey. I think the short of it, Senator, is that there is
a considerable volume of material that likely will come off as
salvage as part of the recovery effort and the restoration
effort there. Whether it can be made available quickly enough
to change the situation with Rough and Ready Lumber Company is
one question; a second question is how much appellate and legal
action there will be once we have proposals on the street for
people to look at since that is not an uncontroversial portion
of the world down there.
Senator Smith. I understand that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record a
letter from the Rough and Ready Lumber Company to President
Bush expressing their pain and their difficulty and their
desire to continue employing their people and staying in their
industry. If I can include that in the record, I would
appreciate it.
The Chairman. It will be admitted.
[The letter of Rough and Ready Lumber Company follows:]
Rough& Ready Lumber Co.,
Cave Junction, OR, January 29, 2003.
Dear President Bush: Our family, the Krausses of Southern Oregon,
is a member of your most committed supporters here in Oregon. Like so
many Americans, your Presidency brought us hope that our country could
be steered onto a track of prosperity and security. Your actions and
leadership has not disappointed us. Specifically, we would like to
thank you for your commitment to improving the health of our forests
and rural communities. To hear you mention the Healthy Forests
Initiative as a top priority in the State of the Union was appreciated
and shows that you personally understand this environmental travesty
Unfortunately however, we have yet to see any changes from the previous
policies of the Clinton Administration.
Since 1922, our family has owned and operated a sawmill in Cave
Junction, which is along Oregon's famous Illinois River. For several
weeks last summer, we lived in fear that our community and sawmill
would be lost to an out-of-control wildfire (the Biscuit Fire), which
ultimately burned half a million acres of wilderness, roadless area,
critical spotted owl habitat and key-watersheds for salmon. This fire
ultimately came within four miles of our sawmill.
In August, you came to Southern Oregon and unveiled your plans to
address this crisis situation. Your comments showed a clear
understanding of the plight faced by our western forests and rural
communities, as well as the importance of protecting wildlife habitat
and watersheds. Your visit and your initiative gave us renewed
confidence in our future.
Unfortunately, last month our hope turned to despair when, due to a
shortage of logs, we were forced to announce the permanent closure of
our mill in April. This decision was not easy. It puts 160 families in
the unemployment line. It will have a devastating effect on the
community of Cave Junction.
It is particularly distressing, and ironic, that within just a few
miles of our sawmill stands enough fire-killed timber to supply our
operation for several years. But those unacceptable policies and
procedures that you propose to change continue to stand in the way of
common sense and our ability to operate our family-owned business. We
are being told that, despite your personal beliefs and position,
persons in your Administration are standing in the way of change. We
find this disheartening and have just about given up.
We have been good stewards of the land and responsible leaders in
our community. We do not want to close our sawmill and lay off our
employees. We want to be part of your plan to protect our forests,
wildlife, watersheds and rural communities. But without a timely
commitment by persons in your Administration to fix the Northwest
Forest Plan, and to salvage and restore these ecosystems devastated by
wildfire, we will be closing our doors permanently.
We sincerely appreciate the sacrifices you have personally made by
accepting the Presidency of our great country. We wish you the very
best.
Sincerely,
Lewis N. Krauss
John P. Krauss
Jennifer Krauss Phillippi
Senator Smith. For fiscal year 2003, the Forest Service
reduced region 6's funding by 12 percent, and can you describe
how this year's request meets the needs of the State of Oregon
where more acres burned than in any other State and where I
believe you are trying to fulfill the Northwest Forest Plan?
Mr. Rey. What you might be looking at there is a temporary
phenomenon. In the work that we have got to do to get the
Northwest Forest Plan back on line and working again, we have
probably have got a year's worth of regulatory work that has to
be completed before we are going to see on-the-ground results.
So if we are going to see results in that regard, it is going
to be more in fiscal year 2005 than it is 2004.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes. I do not have anything to add.
Senator Smith. Pardon me, Chief?
Mr. Bosworth. I say that pretty much covers what I would
have said.
Senator Smith. Okay.
I just have one other question. The National Research
Council recently reported an alarming decrease in the capacity
for advancing the science of forestry. Is this a situation the
Forest Service and its university partners can address
together? Specifically are there some things you can do with
places like Oregon State that have very excellent forestry
programs to accomplish the research that needs to be done? Is
there more or less of an outreach to places like Oregon State?
Mr. Bosworth. The more we can outreach to places like
Oregon State, the better off we are. Oregon State actually is a
very good partner with us in a number of research efforts. They
also do a lot in terms of evaluating some of the programs that
they place in the Forest Service, and provide advice and
counsel from a scientific basis.
More and more, because of the way our research dollars have
gone the last 10 to 15 years, we are trying to find ways of
leveraging the dollars with universities and colleges to get
more of the research at least partnered up with places like
Oregon State.
Senator Smith. I think that is smart, Chief, because my
understanding is that the Forest Service is looking at
significant numbers of retirements in the Forest Service that
historically done this kind of work. And I was just saying that
I think the way you are going in reaching out to universities
is an excellent replacement for the jobs that we are losing in
the Forest Service to retirement. So the more of that you can
do, I think the better off we will be.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
Chief, I want to stay with this Biscuit Fire issue because
I am still really in the dark with respect to what is going to
happen substantively on this issue. Senator Smith is absolutely
right about the importance of it to our area. Congressman
DeFazio, Senator Smith, and I wrote you recently to talk about
the resources. And you have mentioned probably three times this
morning how you are going to redirect money to deal with these
horrendous fires, and the Biscuit Fire is the biggest fire that
we had in the country last year.
I would like to know exactly from where this money is going
to be redirected because, A, I am concerned that it may come
from other critical projects from our region, and that would
concern me, and B, I am not sure we are going to get the money
at all under this kind of redirection. I would like you to tell
me, so we can walk out of here today and we can tell our
constituents.
The letter was sent early in February by Senator Smith,
myself, and Congressman DeFazio. We have tremendous bipartisan
concern in our region about where these dollars are going to
come from. Douglas County, the Cow Creek Tribe, and others are
trying to restore thousands of these acres. Given the fact you
said money is going to be redirected, exactly where is it going
to be directed from?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, first, I do not want to imply that
dollars that will be redirected--the places they are coming
from are not important places to be spending dollars. There are
other good projects that are proposed that we are working on.
We will move the money from those projects to these areas.
Senator Wyden. What would those projects be?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I cannot give you a specific dollar for
dollar. But let me give you an example. Okay? It is not an
Oregon example.
But the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona had a
very large fire, the Rodeo Chedeski Fire, that was partially on
their forest, partially on Indian reservation land, and it was
almost the size of the Biscuit Fire. They were pretty similar
in size. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest will be
redirecting 50 percent of their funds to work on restoration
work on their forest. Now, they had plans to do certain
projects across the forest. They are going to take those
dollars and reprioritize them, 50 percent of those, to do the
high-priority things as a result of the Rodeo Chedeski Fire.
Then the region--and that region would be in Albuquerque,
New Mexico--the regional office, then, will be looking across
the board at the funds that they are distributing for the
fiscal year, redirect some funds to those places that burned,
and get funds to those high-priority areas.
The same thing is going to be happening in the Pacific
Northwest where--between the regional office, the regional
forester, and the forest supervisor--they need to look at where
the dollars were going to be spent and get those moved over.
I am not holding any dollars in Washington as sort of a
slush fund. We are getting all those dollars out to the
regions. In some cases the regional foresters then also work
together to see whether or not there are some higher priorities
because of these emergency situations.
So our purpose is to try to get to the highest priority
places and there are tradeoffs. I do not want to sound like I
am denying that. There are tradeoffs when we do that. But it is
important to get those dollars out there as quickly as we can
to try to do the most important restoration work that needs to
be done as quickly as we can.
Mr. Rey. I think one of the reasons we are not as precise
as we would like to be is that we have not done 2003
allocations yet, for obvious reasons. That is something we
ought to come back and talk to you about when we are at the
point of doing our 2003 allocations. We would be able to show
you then precisely what projects are going to be deferred in
the interest of doing rehabilitation work on the Biscuit Fire
or, in the case of New Mexico, some of the New Mexico fires.
Senator Wyden. Well, gentlemen, just put me down as a big
skeptic of this whole redirection concept. I am not doubting
your sincerity and your desire to figure out a way to make
these tradeoffs, but I think that the chairman, Senator Smith,
and all of my colleagues are coming back to the same point. We
are not going to get these key projects done by osmosis. It is
going to come through actual resources. Chief, I think the
example you gave is well and good, and I appreciate it.
The Biscuit Fire is the biggest fire that we had, and I am
still walking out of this room unclear about how the funds
under this so-called redirection are going to get the work
done. And still I am very concerned, as Senator Smith has
correctly noted, that these dollars are going to come from
other valuable projects in our region, when overall we are
coming up short.
I see the light is on and I want to give you a chance to
respond. Then if I might, Mr. Chairman, just touch very briefly
on one other matter.
Mr. Bosworth. I just want to point out if you take the
fires from the year 2000, the fires from the year 2001, and our
estimation from the fires of 2002, and then look at the total
rehabilitation and restoration inventory that we have, it is
somewhere in the vicinity of $445 million. The only choices we
have are to look at other places and how we can adjust those
priorities to try to get that rehabilitation and restoration
work done.
Senator Wyden. With all due respect, Chief, there is
another attractive choice and that is changing the policy that
you all have made to zero out fire rehabilitation and
restoration. I think you will see some bipartisan interest in
that.
The only other question I have for you, Chief, is there is
great bipartisan concern in our part of the country, amongst
the rural commissioners and others, about the administration's
zeroing out the economic action programs. These have really
helped a lot of small communities. They get really tiny grants,
by governmental standards--a few thousand dollars--and they
have been able to use the segments particularly to develop new
wood-related, value-added industries.
How is the administration going to take up the slack after
the abolition of those economic action programs?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, first, I would like to say that zeroing
those programs out is not intended to be a judgment on the
value of those programs. This administration's policy has been
not to fund earmarks on a recurring basis. Economic action
programs have historically been pretty heavily earmarked.
There are a number of other programs that we have that will
also help with economic action, though. One example would be
the watershed restoration authority under what we refer to as
the ``Wyden language'' that allows us to spend dollars on
private land if it is going to help national forest land and
the watershed. That can also engage the community and help
toward economic action.
There are hazardous fuel funds that can be spent on private
lands that can also enhance some of the economic action. We
have got contracting and cooperative agreement authority for
hazardous fuels that is flexible for executing local preference
contracts that would allow us to give preference to local
people for contracts.
Also, some of the programs that came out of ``Jobs in the
Woods'' from the Northwest Forest Plan are now embodied in
other programs and other opportunities that we have that help.
So there are ways that we can, I think, use the myriad programs
that we have to try to achieve some help to replace some of
those economic action programs. And I am sure some of them will
be earmarked by Congress and we will implement those.
Mr. Rey. Another opportunity is the rural development title
of the farm bill, which Congress passed last June, which has a
significant amount of mandatory funds for programs somewhat
similar to economic action programs. And my counterpart, the
Under Secretary for Rural Development, Tom Dorr, is moving
aggressively to implement the farm bill's rural development
title. We have talked about some of the kinds of projects that
they would like to fund under that authority. That might be a
different subject for a different hearing on a different day. I
think, probably, Tom would be happy to come up and talk with
you all about it. This is a program that is under the Ag
Committee's jurisdiction but, nevertheless, does a lot of rural
development work.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me see if I can summarize on my end and see if Senator
Bingaman has any additional questions.
First, we have a situation, Mr. Rey, that Senator Cantwell
had requested regarding the investigative report on the Thirty
Mile Fire. As we understand it, you are going to release the
information to the ranking member and myself so that Senator
Cantwell can review it. It still is a rather private document,
but you are going to get it to us soon. Is that correct?
Mr. Rey. It is more than a document. It is a record of
about 4,000 pages or so. And we have talked with your committee
counsel on both the majority and minority side to arrange for
those documents to be provided to the committee for the
committee's use.
There are materials in the record that we would be
transmitting that are sensitive under both the Freedom of
Information Act and under the Privacy Act. There is pending
litigation against the Government on both bases at the present
time.
The Chairman. Well, I was assuming that the Senator would
be here, but in her absence, we thought it best to go ahead and
lay this forth in the record. She will be advised of this
dialogue and that it will be forthcoming. The committee staff
will arrange it in the proper manner as described by you and
understood by our staff.
Having said that, let me go back to an issue that I was
specific on, and maybe I would ask it in a more general way
now. When some of us go home and we see a forest that had a
burn 2 years ago, or 2\1/2\ years ago, 1 year ago, and we drive
by it and perhaps people in the area talk with us about it up
the road at a meeting, I am always hearing versions of why
nothing is being done with reference to that burned piece of
forest. Some have been delayed a long time. Some are very
natural and time is not excessive.
I am interested in seeing what this committee can do to
help the situations out there and not just let them languish
with us not knowing the facts. I am interested if you could
submit to us some representative proposals that you have out
there for cleanup that have been delayed by outside
intervention with your idea and notions as to why that has
happened.
Now, I am not asking that you do that now, but I think on
some of them, we ought to finally decide whether we should try
to help out with some legislation or whether this is just the
way it is going to be. So if there can be examples of what is
causing delays that you all think are not necessary, that you
would do a better job for the forest and for everyone concerned
if you could proceed more expeditiously, if you could give us
examples, that would be very helpful.
And at the same time, if you would submit examples to us of
delays in the urban interface situations where you are
proposing refurbishing and cleaning up and are being delayed by
outside intervention, examples of that and why would also be
helpful.
I understand there is a difference of opinion between some
citizens of this country and their groups and feelings of their
groups they belong to as what should or should not be done, but
I think some time or another, we ought to find out what we
think is right and see if there is something we should or
should not be doing. So, could you do that for us?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to do
that. I know I do not have to convince you, but I would like to
just put a picture up on the easel there for a minute. I find
it difficult to believe that anybody that sees the forest after
a burn, and sees how this looks, could disagree with trying to
do treatments in some of these areas that would help.
What this is, this is an area where the Hayman Fire last
year burned. The area right in the middle that is green, that
is the Polhemus prescribed burn that occurred in October of
2001. You can see that the fire was burning from the right side
of the picture toward the left. It hit that Polhemus treated
area, which is about 8,000 acres, and essentially split the
Hayman Fire so that it went around both sides of that 8,000-
acre tract. The only thing that is left out there today in this
municipal watershed in this portion is the green part that we
had treated. If that had been more than 8,000 acres, if it had
been 20,000 acres that we had treated, that could have been
enough possibly to stop the fire cold.
In the end, this is what will take care of our huge fire
costs. This is the kind of thing that will take care of the
problems that people are facing. So I would be happy to get you
the information if that will help to see what kind of changes
we might make together so that we can get this kind of work
done on the ground and change the way these fires will burn in
the future.
Mr. Rey. Based on the timing of that work, it was done with
``happy forests'' money because it was a fiscal year 2001
project.
The Chairman. Let me talk a minute about grazing permits.
Every year, we are confronted with having to put a rider on an
appropriations bill with reference to grazing permits that the
NEPA documentation has not been completed for the renewal in a
timely manner. We keep getting assurance that we will not have
to do that and we keep getting attacked by those that say we
should not do that because we are escaping environmental
review. The way I understand it, we have to continue to do it.
To do otherwise gives people an opportunity to attack grazing
permittees who, through no fault of their own, just have not
been given the permit.
So could you tell us where are we with reference to that
program? Are we making headway? How many more years before we
are able to say we are caught up?
Mr. Bosworth. Our original plan and expectation was a 15-
year program that started in 1995 that would have gotten us
caught up in 2010. We are behind in terms of the number of
allotment management plans that we have, completed
environmental studies on and decisions in--about 50 percent
behind.
The 2004 budget proposes a $7.3 million increase which
would give a 33-percent increase in terms of the number of
decisions that we would get made. So we are proposing some
increases. We do need to get on top of those. It is something
that has to be done, and that is why we proposed the increase
in the 2004 budget.
The Chairman. Has anybody thought of submitting to us
justification for not having to go through with this ordeal on
permits, or are we just going to admit for the future that we
are going to have a NEPA requirement for grazing permits? Is
that where we are?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, without some significant policy
changes, that is where we would be. I would be more than happy
to sit down and work with you on some options that would either
streamline it or change it.
The Chairman. I think there are plenty of people in the
Senate who would think this to be absurd. Yet, it has evolved
not in this administration, but it evolved from one Department.
Then the other started doing it. Now both BLM and the Forest
Service are doing it which does not seem to me to have very
much merit. It just delays things and spends a lot of money.
Mr. Bosworth. The most important thing from my perspective
is that we work carefully to make sure that the grazing program
that we have is of benefit to the land and to economy, and that
we take the right kind of approach that does not create damage.
We can do that, I think, with a whole lot less analysis and
paperwork than what we are doing right now.
The Chairman. I have a last question that I am going to
submit. I just want to call it to your attention as one that is
important in my submissions. It has to do with the Apache-
Sitgreaves and the GMUG National Forests. I will just submit
it, and if you would not mind giving that your special
attention. There are some questions about the funding and the
like. Would you do that please?
Mr. Rey. I would be happy to respond.
The Chairman. I have no further questions.
Oh, Senator Cantwell is here. Senator, I was about to
recess, and you were not yet here. In your absence we
established in the record on your behalf that they are going to
submit the documentation that you had sought with reference to
the Thirty Mile Fire. The record now says they are going to get
it to us, the full document, with the understanding that it is
not to be made totally public but is for your private use for
your perusal. Senator Bingaman and I will submit the request,
and they already telling us the response will be to submit it.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I follow
up with a question?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I know the committee's time is
important here and so I apologize. I was hearing from some
local constituents on this very issue and budget in my office
just now.
Mr. Rey, I wonder if you could be more specific on when
exactly we would get a copy of that redacted information?
Mr. Rey. The record is being copied in Portland now. It is
about 4,000 pages. It would be unredacted because that is what
you are asking for. The total record is somewhere around 4,000
pages. So as soon as we can make the copies, execute the
exchange of correspondence, you should have it. It should only
be a matter of several days I would hope.
The actions were finally completed on February 6, last
Thursday. So our deliberative process is completed. The 11
employees against whom actions were taken still have some
rights of appeal, but at least insofar as the agency's actions,
they are now final.
Senator Cantwell. Well, we will appreciate getting that in
11 days. I just want to make clear for the record this
committee has sought this information since last summer. At a
previous hearing, it was promised to us in August. The
committee, under the auspices of the chairman and ranking
member, sent a written letter that was never responded to
asking for the information.
I understand that there are sensitivities as they relate to
the disciplinary action taken against individuals, but critical
to this entire process is to also understand what changes have
been made by the Forest Service and that a certain group of
employees have not just been made scapegoats for what might be
a larger systemic problem within the Forest Service.
I very much appreciate the chairman asking that question
and the fact that we now have a new commitment to have that
information before us for our private use. It is something to
which I would like the chairman and the ranking member to
continue to pay attention because I believe it is a larger
problem than just that experienced at the Thirty Mile Fire.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask another question here
about the budget and the Northwest Forest Plan because--again,
pardon my absence and for not hearing your whole testimony in
person--but our State has probably done the most aggressive of
any work on habitat conservation plans, with various timber
interests working together in the Pacific Northwest. So we are
not very interested in seeing that plan opened up. Is that your
intention to try to reopen the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan?
Mr. Rey. Not to reopen it--to see if we can make the plan
work under its original terms by modifying some of the
procedural aspects of the plan. To the extent we do any of
that, though, it will be through a notice and comments on
rulemaking process, so everybody will get a fair chance to
evaluate whether what we are proposing is not within the four
corners of the forest plan or whether it is. Our intention is
to stay within the four corners of the forest plan but try to
get it back to the point where it was 4 or 5 years ago when it
was producing not only the environmental protections that were
promised, but the output commitments that were promised as
well.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think that we have had a lot of
private sector or forest owners go to great lengths to come to
the table and implement plans that we think are very positive
for the Northwest. There is a lot of anxiety and concern about
the President's timber plan as it relates to harvesting, which
might threaten clean water and salmon preservation in the
Northwest. So we will be watching very diligently and believe
that the plan should move ahead as is.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Let me ask about Community Forest
Restoration very briefly. We passed the Community Forest
Restoration Act back in 2000 and that established a forest
health demonstration program in New Mexico that you folks have
committed about $5 million a year to since that time. Do you
intend to continue with that funding level in the next fiscal
year?
Mr. Rey. Yes. It is our anticipation to continue to fund it
at current levels.
Senator Bingaman. Let me ask about the local hiring
preference that we wrote into the law. There is a provision in
the law essentially saying that local contractors are to be
given some preference in performing forest health related
activities.
It came to my attention that the work there at the Santa Fe
watershed is not by a local contractor. I am not criticizing
your choice there because I know nothing about the particular
contractor that was chosen, but I was curious as to whether you
are in fact taking steps to actually be sure that local
contractors know about these opportunities and get every
opportunity to take advantage of this local preference.
Mr. Rey. The program manager for the collaborative forest
restoration project is doing a significant amount of outreach
to make sure that, to the extent possible, we are using local
contractors for the projects.
On the Santa Fe watershed, it is my understanding that once
we negotiated through the appeals process to the specific kinds
of treatments that were going to be allowed, we needed some
specialized equipment that local contractors did not possess.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes. I believe there was only one bid that
was submitted on the Santa Fe watershed, is my understanding.
Senator Bingaman. I do think it is important to try to be
sure that local contractors know about these opportunities and
bid wherever possible. Obviously I do not know the specifics of
this case.
Mr. Bosworth. And we will continue to do what we can do to
try to emphasize that local aspect.
Senator Bingaman. One other thing I would mention. Senator
Domenici and I both worked very hard to get this legislation
that is going to the President presumably in the next couple of
days related to the Sandia Mountain settlement, and that gives
you a substantial additional responsibility to manage that new
relationship. Is that something that you feel ready and willing
to do?
Mr. Rey. You send us laws. We are always ready and willing
to implement them, Senator.
The Chairman. They relish it, Senator. They have been
waiting anxiously for it.
Senator Bingaman. Well, we are glad they are going to get
it finally.
The Chairman. We are glad we gave it to them----
Senator Bingaman. Right, and not us.
The Chairman [continuing]. Instead of in our offices.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bingaman. I agree.
The Chairman. Anything further?
Senator Bingaman. No.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
[Note: Responses to the following questions were not
received at the time the hearing went to press].
Questions From Senator Cantwell
pacific northwest salmon recovery
The President's FY 2004 request for NOAA-Fisheries includes $90
million to recover coastal salmon runs and the Interior Department has
proposed an $8 million increase in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
hatchery program, which will fund hatchery improvements in the Pacific
Northwest. Other federal agencies have also requested funds for salmon
recovery in FY 2004. The Forest Service is the single largest land
manager in Washington State, yet it appears that the FY 2004 budget
contains no new funding dedicated for salmon recovery.
Question 1. In addition to funding for base operations for National
Forests in the Northwest, does the Forest Service's FY 2004 budget
include any funding specifically intended for Pacific salmon recovery?
assistance to small private landowners
I appreciate the Forest Service's commitment to working with
private landowners and the proposed increase in the Forest Legacy
Program. This voluntary program gives landowners the option to sell
their lands or interests in their lands for conservation purposes.
However, many landowners wish to keep private lands in private
ownership and be good stewards of their lands. That is why Congress
last year established the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) in the
2002 Farm Bill. FLEP is a voluntary program administered through the
states that is designed to provide non-industrial private landowners
the tools they need to manage private lands.
Question 2. The Farm Bill authorized this program at $20 million
annually, starting in FY 2003. However, on January 7, 2003, the Office
of Management and Budget proposed a 40% reduction in funding for FLEP
in FY 2003 to $8 million. Can you provide information as to the
rationale for this cut?
pacific northwest forest plan
Question 3. The 1994 Pacific Northwest Forest Plan has provided
important benefits to the Pacific Northwest by providing a level of
certainty and stability that did not exist immediately prior to the
adoption of the plan. Mr. Rey has indicated that the Forest Service
plans to propose a rulemaking ``within the four corners of the plan''
to provide additional timber harvest within the next year. Please
provide information regarding the scope and timing of the proposed
rule.
roadless rule
Question 4. Mr. Rey, you indicated that the U.S. Forest Service is
currently developing a draft roadless area rule. Please provide
additional information about the scope and timing of your proposed
rulemaking.
healthy forest initiative--categorical exclusions
In 1998, half of the Forest Service's timber harvest was
categorized by the agency as furthering stewardship purposes. The
principal stewardship goal of these sales was to reduce hazardous
fuels.
Question 5. The Healthy Forest Initiative would allow for
stewardship sales to proceed via categorical exclusions. Therefore,
under the Healthy Forest Initiative, these sales would proceed without
any environmental analysis or public involvement under NEPA. Further,
these sales would be exempt from citizen appeal. Thus, under the Forest
Service's proposal, approximately half of the Forest Service's timber
program would be exempt from NEPA and administrative appeal. Is this
the case?
cascade conservation partnership
Question 6. For the last several years, the Forest Service has
included funds in its budget requests to acquire lands in conjunction
with the Cascade Conservation Partnership. This partnership is an
innovative program involving a private landowner, local conservation
organizations and private donors. The FY 2004, however, included no
funds for this worthy project. In addition to a general reduction in
National Forest land acquisition, are there any specific reasons why
the FY 2004 budget did not include funds for this program?
funding for fire fighter safety and training
I understand that money for firefighter safety and training is
contained in the Forest Service's wildfire preparedness account. And
while I'm pleased that the President's request includes more money for
this function than last year, you will also recall that during this
Committee's hearing on the Fiscal Year 2003 budget, I asked you whether
the Forest Service tracks on a region by region basis how much it
spends for safety and training purposes. You said that you would get us
that information ``for the record,'' and that ``I think related to the
findings of the Thirtymile incident, we will be increasing some of our
safety and training programs.'' However, it later came to light that
the Forest Service didn't actually track these figures. At a May 7
hearing on wildland fire preparedness, Mr. Joel Holtrup, the Forest
Service's Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, told me that
``we do not track specifically yet how much we invest in safety per se.
We are able to get that figure, but we do not have a database that does
that specifically. We are developing one that will do that . . . . but
we can get back to you on that question.''
Question 7. To date, I don't believe we have officially heard back
on those numbers, and it's not clear from reading this budget that you
have put the database Mr. Holtrup alluded to in place. Do you now keep
track of those numbers? If so, how much will you spend this year on
training-related activities, and how do you think this compares to
previous years? If not, how can you commit to me that the Forest
Service is taking the effort to refornl its firefighter safety programs
seriously when the budget for fire preparedness is actually being cut?
osha partnership
Question 8. At various hearings this Committee held last year, we
explored with the Forest Service the notion of entering into a
partnership with OSHA to help ensure that improved safety policies and
procedures were actually being implemented. At one point--a May 7, 2002
hearing on wildland fire preparedness--Mr. Jerry Williams, the Forest
Service director of fire and aviation management, assured me that an
OSHA partnership was an option the agency was pursuing. Mr. Williams
said that ``we are anxious to do anything we can to improve firefighter
safety, including partnerships with OSHA.'' And that ``we are working
with the region, the region is working with the local region of OSHA,
and I believe that they are pursuing this'' partnership. Can you tell
me whether the Forest Service has in fact entered into such a
partnership. And if not, why?
______
Questions From Senator Domenici
grazing and drought
Last year the drought forced some forests in New Mexico to pull the
cattle and sheep off the grazing allotments, on very short notice,
early in the year. We need an update on what the Forest Service plans
to do if the drought continues.
Question 1. Last year, due to drought, you shut down grazing very
early, and on very short notice, forcing grazing permit holders off the
National Forests in New Mexico. I assume we agree that the drought is
still with us. What are you planning to do about this, this year?
Question 2. What have you done to keep the permit holders up to
date on your plans, so they have some time to plan alternatives if you
have to close the allotments again this year?
Question 3. I also know that you understand there is a tremendous
backlog of grazing permit applications that must have NEPA
documentation completed before they can be renewed. Will you give me
your assurance that you will not close any permits during the time it
takes to clear up the backlog of these permits?
______
Questions From Senator Wyden
hazardous fuels reduction
Question 1. Chief Bosworth, in your submitted testimony you
discussed the ``gridlock and analysis paralysis'' that you feel hinders
your management objectives. But how do you expect to enhance
collaboration and trust when you propose sweeping changes in the
expansion of Categorical Exclusions for hazardous fuels reduction
projects? You set no parameters on their scope: they can be inside or
outside the Wildland Urban Interface, take large and green trees--even
old growth--and there are no requirements for thinning from below. How
do you defend yourself to the environmental critics without
environmental standards?
fire suppression
Question 2. Given the National Interagency Fire Center's
predictions regarding the severity of this summer's wildfire season,
what steps are being taken NOW to reduce and mitigate the effects upon
our most vulnerable communities in the Wildland Urban Interface?
Question 3. The Forest Service wants to spend over $1.5 billion
managing wildfire in this budget. But according to a report produced
last year by the Forest Service, firefighting crews were buying $10
pens, L.L. Bean tents, carpet for campsites, and getting paid overtime
to go sightseeing. What are you doing to assure that such abuses of the
taxpayers trust do not happen again?
Question 4. If you are going to salvage log in southern Oregon, it
needs to occur only in those areas already designated as appropriate
for timber harvesting--not in Wilderness, Late Successional Reserves,
Riparian Reserves or other ecologically sensitive management areas. Can
you provide the citizens of Oregon assurances that you will adhere to
these limitations on salvage logging in southern Oregon?
Question 5. The Biscuit Fire last summer devastated almost 500,000
acres in southern Oregon, destroyed four homes, and required evacuation
of 17,000 residents. Yet, the Medford airtanker base used by the Forest
Service for aerial firefighting in the area remains slated for
permanent closure. Many in the Rogue and Illinois valleys remain deeply
concerned about the constant and serious threat of catastrophic fires
in Southwestern Oregon. Don't you think it would be reckless and
shortsighted to close this base?
aerial fire fighter safety
Question 6. During the 2002 fire season, we saw three crashes of
contracted aircraft (two airtankers and one helicopter) which resulted
in five fatalities. We need to be committed to doing what is necessary
to avoid the senseless death of these men and women protecting our
homes and our natural resources. An Interagency Blue Ribbon panel
determined that aircraft age, insufficient maintenance, and
insufficient oversight by federal agencies contributed to these
avoidable tragedies. What is the Forest Service doing to remedy the
problem?
Question 7. The Blue Ribbon panel on aerial firefighting safety
raised serious concerns regarding the safety of the contracted fleet of
airtankers as well as of the lead planes. In response, you permanently
grounded the oldest airtankers, and temporarily grounded the
remaining33 airtankers, pending analysis by Sandia labs. Recent
analyses by independent labs has determined that the lead plane fleet
is nearing its lifetime operating hours--and has possibly only two
seasons of service left. Will your agency have the necessary aviation
resources available for this year's fire season? Is there anything this
committee can do to help the Forest Service assure these planes and
tankers are ready for their duties in what promises to be another
summer of intense fires?
Question 8. The aging airtanker fleet needs to be replaced. In your
agency's response to the Blue Ribbon panel's findings, you are
examining various options, including federal purchase of newer C-130-
Echos with removable tanks, retaining current contractors and requiring
greater oversight, purchasing new, purpose-built planes, or turning the
whole aerial firefighting mission over to National Guard and Airforce
Reserve units. While I certainly agree we need to assure the wise use
of our federal funds, we need to make sure that safety is not
sacrificed in the name of least-cost efficiency. Where do you stand in
this long range planning?
economic action program
Question 9. Rural communities in Oregon have been able to use the
EAP to build their capacity to find long-term solutions to
environmental and economic problems. It has also enabled communities to
be good partners with the Forest Service. A couple of years ago, this
Committee's subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management, heard
testimony regarding this program's success. Oregon's Economic
Development Department testified then about how EAP had helped timber
dependent communities in my state attract new businesses and develop
new wood related industries. The money was small--often in grants of
just a few thousand dollars. But this was often enough to leverage
additional funds and provide some enterprising community member the
opportunity to start a new business. In the absence of the EAP, how
does the Administration and the Forest Service plan to help rural
communities adjacent to National Forest lands?
Question 10. Recently, the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the
University of Oregon released a report on the business and employment
impacts of the National Fire Plan in 2001. The report found a small
increase in the value of contracts awarded to local contractors. This
is a very positive trend. However, we have heard that the use of larger
contracts is increasing--making it difficult for smaller and local
businesses to compete. In light of this disturbing trend, how will the
Forest Service ensure we are getting the best value for the important
restoration and hazardous fuel reduction work that needs to be done? Or
is the National Fire Plan simply a full employment program for
corporate interests?
Question 11. What do you think the impact will be from focusing all
of the funding on suppression and not making investments in
rehabilitation and restoration? Isn't this short-sighted? What will be
the impact on the ecological landscape as well as on our communities?
Dirty water? Non-native invasive species? Landslides?
Question 12. In terms of the Forest Service's stewardship
contracting pilot program, there has been significant progress through
the multi-party monitoring teams. It has been an important part of
building trust. How does the Forest Service budget reflect its
commitment to multi-party monitoring and collaboration? How will the
budget reward people in the field for collaboration?
other issues
Question 13. Staffing on Oregon's 13 National Forests have seen
dramatic cuts since 1990: over 40% on average. Some Forests, like the
Siskiyou--site of last summer's 500,000 Biscuit Fire--have suffered
force reductions of over 60%. Yet, your Agency proposes more active and
aggressive management of these Forests in the name of restoring forest
health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland fire. At the same
time, under the Department of Agriculture's ``Field Leadership
Decisions Initiative,'' the Forest Service states a goal of competitive
sourcing 11,000 positions by the end of FY 2005. What are you doing to
assure that such sourcing is not compromising management goals and
putting Oregon communities and our national treasures at risk?
______
Question From Senator Bingaman
Question. Secretary Rey, last year I wrote to you regarding forest
restoration work on the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico. As you
know, Otero County has been involved in putting together a local
collaborative group to work with the local forest officials on forest
health and restoration activities. You were very helpful in helping to
provide initial funding for this work, as well as related work on
forests in Arizona and Colorado. Last month, the Senate adopted Senator
Domenici's amendment to allow hazardous fuels reduction funds to be
used for this county partnership restoration program. With the fire
season approaching, can you tell us if you intend to make sufficient
funds available this year to maintain these collaborative efforts?
______
Questions From Senator Smith
Question 1. The 2002 Biscuit Fire in Oregon resulted in a
significant amount of wildlife habitat being burned but there was
little impact to the marbled murrelet. According to a Forest Service
wildlife biologist quoted in a news article, the primary habitat for
the murrelet is in the fog zone. Yet, tens of thousands of acres inland
have been designated as critical habitat and were affected by the
Biscuit Fire. Will the designation of marbled murrelet habitat be
reviewed?
Question 2. U.S. Forest Service Fire and Aviation managers and the
recent Blue Ribbon panel findings suggest Type 1 heavy-lift helicopters
could replace some of the fixed-wing airtankers that have been grounded
due to safety concerns. Has the Forest Service examined the possibility
of using Type I helicopters; has any action been taken to secure the
use of these helicopters during the upcoming fire season?