U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–331 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–29

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FOR FY 2006 FOR 

THE FOREST SERVICE

MARCH 2, 2005

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT MILLER, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 3

Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ............... 12

Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky ................................................. 2

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 2

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 5

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 8

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 21

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 7

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 4

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 4

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 47

(1)

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici, 

chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Good morning, everyone. Let me ask that we 

come to order. 

I welcome to the committee certainly all of our members to hear 

the Forest Service’s budget request for 2006. And I certainly want 

to recognize Secretary Mark Rey and the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth. 

Dale, congratulations. I see his facial expression hasn’t quite 

changed yet. Dale will receive this May at the University of Idaho’s 

commencement the highest honor that our State land grant university can bestow on one of its alumni and that is the Hall of Fame. 

I am mighty proud of that and I know you are, too. Congratulations. We are proud of your heritage there and the role that our 

School of Forestry has been able to play in the leadership of the 

Forest Service. 

Rather than undertake a lengthy opening statement, I would like 

to note that this is a very lean budget request. It reflects the President’s desire to reduce the budget deficit and like many other agencies, the Forest Service will be impacted. 

I will be asking a number of questions as will all of us and submitting questions related to the specifics of the budget and the 

budget area and the legislative initiatives it proposes. 

Before I ask other members for opening statements, I would like 

to make a few observations. 

The budget requests and proposed outputs do not reflect the strategic focus listed in the budget proposal. In some instances, funding 

and outputs are far below previous year expenditures, while other 

program requests and outputs are above last year’s levels, which 

suggest a different emphasis may exist. 

In the face of the agency’s request for budget reductions for facilities, maintenance, trails, and road maintenance, I continue to be 

concerned with the Forest Service’s request for land acquisition 

funding. 

2

There are other issues I am sure that we will discuss that are 

regional or parochial in nature as they relate to the budget and the 

budget impact upon all of our States. I will address those in my 

questions to you, Chief, and to you, Mr. Secretary. 

I am troubled in large part by the increasing demands that are 

placed upon the Forest Service, the obvious need to fund the necessary training programs for State and local fire assistance and 

State and Private Forestry programs and our Wildland Fire Management programs. 

Those are continuing to be an issue in the Great Basin West and 

especially in Idaho. We are the driest in recorded water history. 

And unless we get a wet spring, I think our forests will be increasingly vulnerable, as will be true in some of our adjoining States. 

So there are a great many issues that we will want to discuss 

with you at this budget hearing. 

With that, let me turn to the ranking member of the committee, 

Senator Bingaman. 

Senator. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Bunning and Domenici follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY

Today’s hearing on the fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department of the Interior 

is important for the protection of our country’s natural resources. I believe that 

funding conservation and management of those resources will help benefit communities today and preserve our cultural heritage for future generations. 

One particularly important program for the State of Kentucky is the Abandoned 

Mine Land (AML) program. Coal mining has been important to Kentucky’s economy 

and has helped keep Kentucky’s electricity rates the lowest in the Nation. AML has 

helped restore lands and waters impacted by mining but were left inadequately restored. Last year we passed a temporary reauthorization of the AML program with 

the hope of addressing the details and goals of the program more thoroughly this 

year. I will be interested to hear what your thoughts are for the AML program. 

I know that Congress will have the tough job of practicing some fiscal restraint. 

Although fiscal year 2006 will be a challenging one, I am confident that we can 

practice restraint while protecting our Nation’s resources. 

I thank Under Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth and their staff for their hard 

work and their willingness to appear before us today to explain the Forest Service’s 

budget in detail. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

FROM NEW MEXICO

I want to welcome Committee Members to this hearing on the Forest Service FY 

2006 Budget request. 

And I want to welcome Undersecretary Mark Rey and Chief of the Forest Service, 

Dale Bosworth to the Committee this morning to help us understand the proposals 

made by the Administration in this budget request. 

Rather than undertake a lengthy opening statement, I would note that this is a 

very lean budget request. It reflects the President’s desire to reduce the budget deficit and like many other agencies, the Forest Service will be impacted. 

I will be asking a number of questions and submitting other questions related to 

the specifics of this budget request and the legislative initiatives it proposes. 

Before I ask other Members for their opening statements, I would like to make 

a few observations.

• The budget request and proposed outputs do not reflect the strategic focus listed 

in the budget proposal. In some instances funding and outputs are far below 

previous years’ expenditures, while other program requests and outputs are 

above last year’s levels, which suggests a different emphasis may exist. 

3

• In the face of the agency’s requests for budget reductions for facilities, maintenance, trails, and roads maintenance, I continue to be concerned with the Forest Service’s request for land acquisition funding. 

• On Valles Caldera, I am getting frustrated with the game the Administration 

appears to be playing on funding this program. We all know how important this 

transitional funding is and I recall you telling me last year that you would do 

your best to include the needed funding in this year’s budget request. Yet once 

again it is not requested. 

• I am troubled by the time you plan to take to complete forest plan revisions 

in New Mexico. There are twenty five other forests, in other regions, that have 

younger plans than the forests in our state, yet they are scheduled to be completed prior to our National Forests in New Mexico. 

• Finally, the cuts to State and local fire assistance in the State and Private programs and in the Wildland Fire Management programs greatly concern me.

I want to remind everyone that we will be accepting additional testimony on this 

hearing for the next ten days and I expect to be submitting all supplemental questions to the agency tomorrow.

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

FROM NEW MEXICO 

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

you all for being here. I appreciate it. 

I thought he was going to congratulate you on the hundred years’ 

anniversary of the Forest Service, which we also think is a very 

major milestone, and congratulations on that. 

Let me mention two or three things that I hope you will be able 

to address in your testimony or in the questions. 

One is the issue that we have dealt with, I think every year that 

I have been here involved with the Forest Service budget, and that 

is the whole issue of fire borrowing, as I think we refer to it. Last year we appropriated $400 million in supplemental funds to 

the Forest Service to pay back accounts that were borrowed from 

in the past and to keep some of that money in reserve for the future. 

I would be interested in any status reports you could give us on 

whether or not we are in the circumstance where we will have to 

look at fire borrowing again or if the problem is behind us. It has 

been an ongoing problem and one I think we need to understand 

better. 

Obviously another issue is the whole issue of deteriorating roads 

in the national forests. As I understand it, road maintenance needs 

very dramatically out-distance the budget or any plans for the 

budget. And I would be interested in knowing how you see that. 

There is a cut proposed, a 16 percent cut from last year, and that 

does not include a proposed 30 percent cut in the deferred maintenance and infrastructure accounts, which is also used to maintain 

roads. So I would be interested in that. 

A third issue, and this relates to the national fire plan, which we 

all have given speeches about and talked about for some time now, 

includes several things that appear to me to have been largely forgotten about in the budgeting. And that is rehabilitation, community assistance and monitoring. 

And with regard to the rehabilitation account, the proposal in the 

budget is for an 84 percent cut from last year. There is a 26 percent cut in state and private forestry, a 54 percent cut in cooperative fire assistance, a 30 percent cut in forest health management, 

4

a 13 percent cut in cooperative forestry and elimination of the Economic Action Program. 

With regard to monitoring the proposal is a decrease of 18 percent from the fiscal year 2001 levels. So that is obviously a major 

concern as well. I will have some questions when we get a chance 

to ask questions. 

Thank you again for being here. 

Senator CRAIG. Senator Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. I generally wait. I guess we all 

have some interest in the time it takes for forest plans to be done 

and whether this budget is going to assist in that area, the whole 

question of endangered species and how that is being used as a 

land management tool. It seems as if it is. 

Obviously, we are interested in multiple use and how that fits together, as well as and wilderness study areas that are supposed to 

be study areas and not wilderness—why that is the case. 

So a number of things, but I will wait until the question period, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I was 

going to go through exactly the same numbers that Senator Bingaman mentioned in his address and I want to associate myself with 

his remarks. 

I would just say to all of you at the Forest Service, what you 

have done is redefined the concept of thinning because that is essentially what your budget is synonymous with. On all of the key 

areas where members of the U.S. Senate have tried to reach and 

work in good faith with the Forest Service, you all are not willing 

to meet us halfway. 

As Senator Bingaman touched on, we give these big speeches 

about working with the communities and a fresh approach with respect to dealing with fire in the long term. Senator Craig and I just 

put hours and hours into the Healthy Forest legislation, and this 

budget basically takes away the tools to do it on the ground. I 

mean, that is what it really means. 

When you strip down Senator Bingaman’s budget cuts that he 

outlined area by area, what it means is these local communities 

across the country are not going to have the tools to do what was 

in the bipartisan Healthy Forest legislation. I look forward to your 

giving us some assessment on how it might be otherwise. 

It is pretty interesting. The Forest Service fiscal year 2006 budget press release is entitled, ‘‘President Bush reinforces commitment 

to cooperative conservation in the 2006 budget.’’ Yet in all of these 

cooperative programs, which last time I looked is what the President is talking about in his press release, there are big cuts and 

they are all over the programs. 

5

In total between the SPF and the WFM account, State Fire Assistance is proposed for a $22.8 million cut. That is 31 percent. Forest Health Management Cooperative Lands proposed for a $30.6 

million, 53 percent cut. 

This is not keeping faith with local communities. I am sure we 

are going to hear about how there is some sort of budgetary sleight 

of hand that is going to let us avoid duplication and the like. I am 

telling you, that is not what we are hearing from folks on the 

ground. 

So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Bingaman so that we can do what Congress set out to do in 

a bipartisan way for legislation that got more than 80 votes in the 

U.S. Senate. 

Senator Craig and I have often noted that we were not getting 

any forestry bills to the floor of the senate until the ‘‘County Payments Bill’’ and the ‘‘Forest Health Bill.’’ We worked in a bipartisan way. We are going to continue to do it. 

It is not going to be possible to do it if we have these budgets 

that take away the tools to carry out the kind of legislation that 

gets 80 votes in the U.S. Senate and constitutes a real breakthrough for the West. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and Senator Bingaman and Senator Thomas here. All our colleagues who 

put in all this time, I am anxious to work with you. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Ron. 

We have been joined by two other of our colleagues, Senator 

Murkowski and Senator Smith. 

Lisa, do you have any opening comments you would like to 

make? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

good morning, Mr. Bosworth, Mr. Rey. 

I do have an opening statement that I would like to submit in 

full for the record. But just very, very briefly, there is a pretty good 

quote, I think, from former President Teddy Roosevelt, that I think 

we ought to be reminded of when we think of our forests and forest 

management. 

He said, ‘‘First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for 

a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in 

itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the 

wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary objective of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, 

is the making of prosperous homes.’’

And when you think about it, there is a pretty fundamental difference between a national park and a national forest. When we 

think about the multiple-use policy—you know, in Alaska, I think 

we certainly appreciate that we would like to get back to a policy 

of multiple use. It is not only the recreation, and it is not only the 

‘‘look but do not touch,’’ but also there is a principle that requires 

that our forest resources be managed not only for the ecosystem 

6

and the habitat values but for tourism, for recreation, and also for 

the harvesting of timber. 

So I hope that we will be able to refocus on this pretty fundamental organic principle of multiple use. I think it is a principle 

that is often lost in some of the politicized debate that goes on. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity this morning to be able to ask questions of Mr. Bosworth and Mr. Rey as we 

focus on those principles of how we better achieve a true multipleuse policy for our national forests. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to join you in welcoming Mr. Rey 

and Chief Bosworth back to the committee. It is no understatement to say that the 

Forest Service is one powerful presence in my State of Alaska. 

The Forest Service manages some 22 million acres in Southeast and South Central Alaska. The Tongass National Forest stretches the 500 mile length of the 

Southeast Alaska panhandle and covers more than 80% of the land. The Chugach 

National Forest begins just 50 miles south of Anchorage and stretches some 200 

miles across Prince William Sound, the Copper River Delta and the Kenai Peninsula. 

I am proud to join with Mr. Rey, Chief Bosworth and Forest Service employees 

across the nation in observing the 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. The Forest Service was founded on the principle of multiple use. 

The Alaska Forest Association is fond of this 1903 quote which is attributed to 

President Theodore Roosevelt and appears on their website:

‘‘First and foremost,’’ President Roosevelt explained, ‘‘you can never afford to 

forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor 

because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that 

too is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes.’’

There is a fundamental difference between a National Park and a National Forest. The governing principle in our National Parks, particularly those in the Lower 

48 that are not subject to the management principles in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is ‘‘look but don’t touch.’’

Multiple use does not mean ‘‘look but don’t touch.’’ The principle requires that our 

forest resources be managed not only for ecosystem and habitat values, but also for 

tourism, recreation and yes, the harvest of timber to promote economic development. 

During this centennial year I would hope that we refocus on this fundamental, 

organic principle of multiple use. It is a principle too often lost in the highly politicized debates that in my view have hijacked our forest policy with the goal of managing our National Forests in the same way we manage our National Parks. Multiple use simply does not mean turning our National Forests into wilderness areas. 

The people of Alaska and visitors to our State enjoy our forest resources for their 

natural beauty and recreational opportunities. Our national forests are home to diverse species of fish and game which Alaskans depend upon for their subsistence 

foods. 

But we must also not forget that Alaska’s national forest resources have historically provided the economic lifeblood for numerous Southeast Alaska communities. 

This too is part of President Roosevelt’s legacy. 

I am sad to observe that our Nation’s recent lack of commitment to multiple use 

principles in the Tongass National Forest has wreaked havoc on the economy of 

Southeast Alaska and brought pain to numerous small businesses. 

There may be some in this room who would say that Southeast Alaska’s forest 

products industry is a relic of the past and that the family owned businesses that 

own the mills and construct the roads—should be put out of their misery. 

Like most Alaskans, I respectfully reject this notion. I would like to think that 

the best days of the Alaska forest products industry are yet to come. 

I applaud the work of the good people at the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center 

and the Wood Utilization Center in Sitka who are working to develop new markets 

for Alaska timber. 

7

And I applaud the resilience of Ted Falconer, an entrepreneur from Washington 

state, who has withstood the efforts of a national environmental organization to harass into abandoning plans to reopen a veneer mill in Ketchikan. According to the 

Associated Press, 153 unsolicited letters were faxed to Mr. Falconer from the offices 

of the Natural Resources Defense Council, jamming his fax machine. 

But most of all, I appreciate the resilience of our family owned businesses that 

simply refuse to say die. 

I have had an opportunity to read the prepared testimony and appreciate Chief 

Bosworth’s observation that the United States consumes much more wood than it 

produces and must import wood from other countries. The same is true for Alaska. 

A 1998 marketing study shows an annual lumber market in Alaska of approximately 100 million board feet—most of which comes from Canada and the Lower 

48 states. We also import engineered wood products, manufactured wood products 

and preservative treated wood. 

Alaska is prepared to accept the challenge of supplying its own timber needs. The 

mills that struggle to stay open have an operating capacity of about 200 million 

board feet. Yet today the mills have only about 50-70 million board feet of timber 

available. 

The 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan provides that a maximum of 267 million board feet of timber can be harvested from the Tongass. Yet the Alaska Forest 

Association is deeply concerned that the Forest Service continues to plan for only 

100-150 million board feet annually and is able to deliver about 50-70 million board 

feet. 

I’m going to stop here but let me close on this point. The Alaska Forest Products 

industry is not going away and I want you to know that this Senator Murkowski—

like the last one—is committed to seeing it flourish. 

I look forward to working with Mr. Rey, Chief Bosworth and the devoted Forest 

Service employees in Region 10 who are truly committed to multiple use informed 

by sound science and sound economics toward this end.

Senator CRAIG. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, welcome. 

Good to see you. I want to join with other colleagues who no doubt 

have noted that it is the hundredth anniversary of the Forest Service. 

Certainly in those hundred years, there has been no way to get 

out of the politics, but you certainly made an enormous contribution to our Nation and in our forests. Despite fire and floods and 

every other kind of catastrophe, I think it is appropriate to occasionally thank you for your service. 

I want to suggest also, though, that I am pleased to see a proposed increase in funding for forest products in your line item, but 

I am a little disappointed that there is not more commitment to 

fully implement the Clinton Forest Health Plan and also, as I understand it, President Bush’s Healthy Forest Initiative. 

As I understand, the proposal for the Pacific Northwest Region 

would receive less than half the timber budget it received during 

the Clinton administration. I hope to clarify that point as we get 

into this hearing. 

Welcome, gentlemen. And, again, thank you. We will take your 

budget and see if we can make it better. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much. 

Now let me turn to our panel, the Chief of the Forest Service, 

and Under Secretary Rey. I will let you proceed in the order that 

you choose. We do have a vote around 10:30. We will want to take 

8

* NOTE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: We believe that Under Secretary 

of Agriculture Mark Rey meant to say $867 million. 

your testimony prior to that and attempt to get into questions prior 

to that. 

The chairman may be here by then and we will phase in and out 

to keep the questions going or we will go into a brief recess for 

those votes. 

Please proceed, gentlemen. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. REY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Chief Bosworth in 

appearing before you today. 

As many of you indicated, this year marks the hundredth anniversary of the creation of the Forest Service and as a result of the 

agency’s actions over the past hundred years of multiple use management, the decline in forest land that was occurring rapidly at 

the turn of the last century is stabilized; forest land has increased 

in some areas of the Nation. 

Areas destroyed by wildfire have declined by 90 percent. Forest 

growth is exceeding forest harvest. Tens of millions of acres of cutover land have been reforested and much of these areas have again 

been harvested and reforested. 

Finally, populations of important wildlife species that were near 

extinction in the 1900’s have been restored from the brink of extinction. 

So the past hundred years has shown a considerable amount of 

accomplishment and pursuit of conservation objectives on the National Forest System. Let me tell you about some of the issues that 

we will be focusing on the next hundred years, most prominent of 

which is the Healthy Forest Initiative. 

The Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides emphasis and new authorities necessary to protect communities and natural resources from the risk of catastrophic fire. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior land management agencies includes about 

$876 million* to continue the implementation of the President’s 

Healthy Forests Initiative. That is an increase of $57 million over 

last year and significantly in excess of the authorization levels provided in Title 1 of the bill. 

As Senators Wyden and Bingaman noted, the mix of emphasis is 

more toward Federal rather than non-Federal land. We believe that 

is because there are other programs, which we can talk about in 

our questioning and answering period, that deal with non-Federal 

lands and non-Federal initiatives, in some cases with superior delivery systems. 

In fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service and the Department of the 

Interior will reduce hazardous fuels on 4.3 million acres, an increase of nearly 300,000 acres from fiscal year 2005, which was 

9

itself an all-time record and over four times the average annual 

acres treated during the 1990’s. 

The Forest Service will focus two-thirds of its treatment in the 

wildland-urban interface to protect communities during fiscal year 

2006. While the effective treatment of hazardous fuels provides the 

long-term protection for communities and natural resources from 

the threat of catastrophic wildfire, the agency must also continue 

to address fire preparedness. 

The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will maintain sufficient readiness resources to suppress more than 98 percent of wildfires on initial attack. As a result of the reengineering 

of the fleet of aviation assets in advance of the fiscal year 2004 fire 

season, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior exceeded the success rate in suppressing fires on initial attack of previous years. 

As a basis of comparison, in fiscal year 2003, we were successful 

in suppressing on initial attack 98.3 percent of all ignitions. During 

fiscal year 2004, we succeeded in suppressing 99 percent of all ignitions on initial attack. That resulted in 70 fewer escapements with 

an average suppression savings of about $22 million. 

Last year, we did not need to borrow from operating accounts for 

fire fighting purposes as a result of changes that you made in the 

budget process. If those changes continue on into this year and 

next, I would anticipate that we would not have to borrow this year 

or next year as well. 

Going beyond the Healthy Forest Initiative and fire fighting efforts in response to concerns about agency accountability and management, the Forest Service has been diligently working to improve 

its financial and program management. In response to Senator 

Thomas’s question, the agency’s implementation of a new planning 

rule is expected to significantly reduce both the time and cost to 

amend or revise land management plans. 

Another important efficiency initiative contained in the President’s budget will enable the agency to more effectively manage its 

facilities. Presently the agency has over 40,000 facilities in its inventory, substantially more than it needs and averaging substantially more than one building per employee of the Forest Service. 

Legislation proposed as part of the budget will authorize the sale 

of unneeded facilities for fair market value and the use of sale proceeds to address the maintenance backlog. 

In addition, the legislation would provide for the establishment 

of a working capital fund for maintenance that will assess programs that use facilities for the maintenance of those facilities. 

With that legislation, I believe that we can get a jump on some 

of the maintenance backlog that infests the facilities and other assets of the National Forest System. I look forward to working with 

the committee in enactment of that legislation. 

In response to the President’s management agenda, the Forest 

Service is becoming more efficient in how it performs administrative support. By the end of 2005, the agency will have completed 

its implementation of a new information technology support organization and the centralization of its financial management systems. 

10

In fiscal year 2006, the agency will centralize its human resource 

management activities. All of the activities will be headquartered 

in a service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Combined, these three efforts will reduce overhead expenses by 

$91 million annually, allowing those savings to be reprogrammed 

into on-the-ground land management activities. 

In recognition of the agency’s commitment to sustained and effective financial management, I am very pleased that earlier this 

year, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, removed the 

Forest Service from its high-risk list. 

The GAO’s action was a direct result of three successive clean 

audit opinions and the demonstrated commitment of the administration to implement organizational change that will ensure the 

Forest Service’s ability to sustain future clean audits. 

I look forward to working with the Congress to enact the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget. We would be pleased to answer any 

questions after Chief Bosworth speaks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

this opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Chief Bosworth in appearing before you today. In 

my testimony, I will discuss two main issues. First, I will focus on priorities for the 

Forest Service as it moves into its second century of fulfilling its mission, including 

the role that the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) holds in that mission. 

Second, I will discuss the reforms and efficiency actions the agency is employing to 

deliver its mission more efficiently. 

As we move through the process of enacting the FY 2006 Budget, all of us in the 

Executive Branch, like all of you in Congress, are well aware of the challenges faced 

in funding the priorities of the nation. The President’s proposed budget for the Forest Service addresses key priorities, makes critical tradeoffs, and demands efficiency 

in delivery of programs. I look forward to working with you to enact the President’s 

budget for the Forest Service. 

MOVING FORWARD—A NEW CENTURY OF SERVICE

As Chief Bosworth will also discuss, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the 

Forest Service. To give you a sense of how the Forest Service plans to move forward, 

I will briefly review the mission adopted by the Forest Service in 1905 when it was 

formed, and how its response to the national issues in the coming century are, for 

the most part, similar. 

The 1905 mandate given the Forest Service involved responding to the degradation of watersheds and the substantial loss of forests and wildlife. The agency began 

taking important actions to conserve America’s resources, including the closing of 

public domain lands and reserving the remaining public lands for protection and 

management; promoting the conservation and productivity of forests and grasslands 

regardless of ownership; acquiring scientific knowledge on natural resources management; improving management and productivity of all agricultural lands and forests; and adopting and enforcing wildlife conservation laws. As a result of the agency’s actions over the past 100 years of multiple-use management, the decline in forest land has stabilized and increased in some areas of the nation. Areas destroyed 

by wildfire have declined by 90 percent. Forest growth is exceeding harvest. Tens 

of millions of acres of cutover lands have been reforested and much of these areas 

have again been harvested and reforested. Finally, populations of important wildlife 

species have been restored from the brink of extinction. 

In the coming century, the Forest Service must focus on restoring the health of 

watersheds, increasing recreational opportunities, providing clean water, establishing healthy wildlife and fish populations, and protecting communities and resources from the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The agency must accomplish this 

while providing minerals and forest products to meet the increasing demands of the 

11

nation. The President’s emphasis on healthy forests makes sustainable production 

of products an integral aspect of improving forest health. 

HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

The HFI and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides emphasis and new authorities necessary to protect communities and natural resources from the risk of 

catastrophic fire. The FY 2006 budget for the Forest Service and DOI includes about 

$867 million to continue implementation of the President’s HFI, which is an increase of $57 million from last year. This amount includes a request for $492 million 

in hazardous fuels funding and the planned expenditure of an additional $375 million in other habitat management activities that will reduce the risk of wildfire. In 

FY 2006, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) will reduce 

hazardous fuels on 4.3 million acres, an increase of nearly 300,000 acres from FY 

2005, itself an all-time record. 

The Forest Service will focus two thirds of its treatment in the wildland urban 

interface (WUI) to protect communities. Protecting communities from the risk of 

wildfire can be accomplished by activities that result in the production of forest 

products and the protection and enhancement of watersheds and wildlife. For example, the Forest Service has worked closely with communities to complete over 600 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans that identify the local strategies necessary to 

protect communities and promote multiple-use management activities. 

The efficient expenditure of federal funds requires the agency to develop appropriate incentives that will make the use of forest products an integral aspect of the 

hazardous fuels reduction. The Forest Service will make maximum use of the stewardship contracting authority and the new authorities provided by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to make treatment of hazardous fuels more efficient. In furthering this objective, the President’s Budget includes a $10 million investment to 

improve facilities at the Forest Product Laboratory (FPL) in Madison, Wisconsin 

that will increase research in creating new products from forest biomass. 

EFFICIENT RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES

While the effective treatment of hazardous fuels provides the long-term protection 

of communities and natural resources from the threat of catastrophic wildfire, the 

agency must also continue to address fire preparedness. The Forest Service and DOI 

will maintain sufficient readiness resources to suppress more than 98% of wildfires 

on initial attack. This represents the same approximate level of readiness that has 

occurred over the past several years. Being prepared to manage and suppress wildfire requires continued emphasis on improved and efficient use of equipment and 

personnel. As a result of reengineering the fleet of aviation assets in advance of the 

FY 2004 fire season, the Forest Service and DOI maintained the success rate in suppressing fires on initial attack. Increased emphasis on the using helicopters instead 

of large fixed-wing air tankers enabled better pre-positioning of aviation assets in 

areas where the greatest danger existed and the more accurate application of retardant. The Forest Service is currently completing a long-term aviation strategic 

plan that will address the wise use of fixed-wing and helicopter assets, which we 

fully expect to further improve efficiency. 

Effective use of suppression assets requires close coordination among federal, 

state, and local agencies. Under the oversight of the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council, federal, state, and local resources are being more effectively coordinated in 

response to wildfires. I am pleased with the coordination that has resulted through 

this effort. 

Although the FY 2004 fire season was relatively mild, the agency still expended $726 million for wildfire suppression. The President’s Budget continues a focus on 

reducing wildland fire suppression costs and provides suppression funds at the tenyear average cost adjusted for inflation. Additionally, the Budget contains incentives 

for reducing costs through the allocation of funds to the field and authorizing use 

of unobligated balances for hazardous fuel treatments. 

FOREST SERVICE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

In response to concerns about agency accountability and management, the Forest 

Service has been diligently working to improve its financial and program management. The agency’s implementation of a new planning rule is expected to significantly reduce both the time and cost to amend or revise land management plans. 

In addition, the rule provides for a pre-decisional objection process that replaces a 

less efficient appeal process. With the objection process, the public has an opportunity to make their concerns known to a higher-level official, and the agency then 

has the opportunity to make appropriate adjustments before the plan is approved. 

12

The appeal process, which was after plan approval, required any necessary or appropriate changes to be made through further planning processes. 

Another important efficiency initiative contained in the President’s Budget will 

enable the agency to more effectively manage its facilities. Presently, the agency has 

over 40,000 facilities in its inventory—significantly more than it needs, averaging 

substantially more than one building per employee. Legislation proposed as part of 

the budget will authorize the sale of unneeded facilities for fair market value, and 

the use of sale proceeds to address the maintenance backlog. In addition, the legislation will provide for the establishment of a working capital fund for facility maintenance that will assess programs that use facilities for the maintenance of those facilities. Local line officers will need to assess the number of facilities that are needed and the necessary operating funds to perform facilities maintenance—this creates 

the incentive to keep the number of facilities to a minimum. The rest will be conveyed at fair market value. It is anticipated this action will reduce the agency deferred maintenance backlog by 25 percent by FY 2010. 

In response to the President’s Management Agenda, the Forest Service is becoming more efficient in how it performs administrative support. By the end of FY 2005, 

the agency will have completed its implementation of a new information technology 

support organization and the centralizing of its financial management. In FY 2006, 

the agency will centralize its human resource management activities. Combined, 

these three efforts will reduce overhead expenses by $91 million annually. I appreciate the support Congress has shown as the Forest Service implements these reforms. 

Even with these improvements, however, inefficiencies increase program delivery 

costs and are impeding Forest Service performance. The Administration proposes 

additional reforms to enhance Forest Service efforts to improve its accountability 

and focus on measurable results in the management of our national forests. These 

reforms will significantly reduce overhead, business management, and other indirect 

costs to improve efficiency and program delivery. 

In recognition of the agency’s commitment to sustained and effective financial 

management, I am very pleased that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

removed the Forest Service from its ‘‘High Risk List.’’ The GAO’s action was a direct 

result of three successive ‘‘clean audit’’ opinions and the demonstrated commitment 

of the Administration to implement organizational change that will ensure the Forest Service’s ability to sustain future clean audits. 

CONCLUSION

A ‘‘clean audit’’ opinion is the minimum the public should expect from the Forest 

Service. Just like America’s citizens, a federal agency should be able to balance its 

checkbook. Further, the agency must demonstrate that it performs its mission as 

efficiently as possible. The President’s Management Agenda is creating the framework for efficiency. I believe the Forest Service has responded well and is demonstrating its commitment to the efficient delivery of natural resource management 

on federal and non-federal forest and rangelands. I look forward to working with 

Congress to enact the President’s FY 2006 Budget. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Senator CRAIG. Dale. 

STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

HANK KASHDAN, BUDGET DIRECTOR 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the opportunity 

to talk about the President’s budget for the Forest Service for 2006. 

I’m accompanied by Hank Kashdan, who is our budget director in 

the Forest Service. 

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your comments about the University 

of Idaho. I am proud that I went to school there. I would say I 

would have studied a little bit harder if I had known I was going 

to be in this job some day though. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOSWORTH. But it was a great experience and it is a great 

institution. 

13

I also appreciate the comments on our centennial in the Forest 

Service. A hundred year mark is a great opportunity for us, I 

think, to reflect a bit on the past, but more importantly to look to 

the future into another century of service to our Nation’s forests 

and to the American people. We believe that we are fit for the job 

and looking forward to the kinds of changes that we need to make 

to do the job that people expect us to do. 

My opening remarks are going to focus on four areas I would like 

to talk about briefly. 

First a little bit about the tight and austere budget and second, 

some of the efficiencies that we are trying to take to improve our 

organization so we can get more dollars to ground. 

Third, we are working toward getting better visibility and better 

collaboration, making our decisions more visible to the public, and 

doing a better job of collaboration. Finally, integrating all the functions of our work so that we are able to provide for healthy forests 

and healthy communities. 

So I would like to discuss each one of those. 

First, the tight, austere budget. It is a difficult budget time and 

there are a lot of programs that the Forest Service deals with that 

we like very much. But we have a role along with all the other 

Federal agencies to help with the budget deficit. That means that 

there are some tough choices and some tradeoffs that we have to 

make. We believe that this budget reflects some difficult choices 

and some difficult tradeoffs and we would be happy to discuss any 

of those. 

It also keeps a focus on the highest priorities. The highest priorities for us are reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and continuing to improve the health our Nation’s forests. 

Next, I would like to talk about to some of the efficiencies. Under 

Secretary Rey discussed some of those, but one of the things that 

we have been working hard on for at least the 4 years that I have 

been in this job is to improve our ability to get the dollars to the 

ground to do the work. 

There are several kinds of efficiencies we have been working on. 

One deals with our process stuff, what I have referred to as analysis paralysis or process gridlock or process predicament. 

With the help of Congress and with the help of the administration, we have tools in place that are helping us to improve those 

efficiencies, things like the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and 

stewardship contracting and categorical exclusions. All those areas 

have helped us to be able to get the job done on the ground better. 

We still have a ways to go. There are many other things that we 

as an organization, working through our regulatory processes, need 

to continue to improve. 

The other part is our administrative reforms, sort of the internal 

workings, our business management processes. As mentioned earlier, we expect with our administrative reforms to be able to save 

$91 million a year once we institute our changes. 

We expect that our administrative reforms will result in a reduction of about 1,300 FTEs, full-time equivalents. One of the steps we 

are taking is centralizing some of our processes. 

14

* NOTE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: We believe that Chief Bosworth 

meant to say $500 million. Chief Bosworth noted this correction later in his testimony. 

Take, for example, our financial management processes. We will 

be centralizing those in Albuquerque. We have the Albuquerque 

service center open and we are in the process of finalizing that. 

That along with getting our clean audit opinions and making 

changes to our overall financial management system, I think, puts 

us well on the road to being able to sustain a quality financial 

management system in the Forest Service. 

We are doing the same kinds of adjustments in our information 

technology and our human resources areas so that when we are 

done with that, we will have people in a centralized location. We 

will be more consistent and we will be saving dollars. 

We are also going to be proposing some changes in our facilities 

management. We have some proposals regarding facilities management that we believe will also improve our efficiency. I would be 

happy to discuss those in more detail. 

Again, I believe that these commitments and these changes will 

allow us to get more dollars to the ground in the end. 

I mentioned visibility and collaboration are what we are working 

on. There are several areas that we are moving on to increase our 

public participation and our public involvement. 

One that is really important is our partnerships. That is a huge 

opportunity for us for the future. We have always used partnerships for a long, long time, but there are many more opportunities 

for us. 

I am pleased to say that in fiscal year 2004, for about $500,000* 

worth of appropriated dollars, we got about $500,000* worth of dollars and in-kind work from our partners, resulting in a billion dollars getting to the ground to get the job done. 

We are making some changes through our planning rule and our 

planning processes. We came out with a revised planning rule in 

December. While there is some controversy associated with that, I 

believe that it will help us work with the public in a more effective 

way than we have in the past. 

When it takes 8 to 10 years to complete a forest plan, it is very 

difficult for people who just care about the land to stay engaged. 

And under our new planning rule, we expect to be able to complete 

a forest plan in 2 to 3 years. I think people then can stay engaged 

and involved in our process; that will give us more visibility. 

There is also in our planning rule a requirement for independent 

audits on each forest each year. Those audits will be done. As I 

said, they are independent and those will also increase our visibility. Each year, we will be able to tell people whether or not we 

did what we said we would do and whether or not we are getting 

the results that we said that we would get. We will then make adjustments based upon monitoring if we are not getting the results 

we want. 

In the area of fire and fuels treatment, we have community wildfire protection agreements in place in over 600 communities. That 

is bringing more people together and involving people in a more 

high visibility way so that we can focus on hazardous fuels areas 

that the communities also believe we need to work on. 

15

The ‘‘Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act’’ allows us to 

create recreation advisory councils where, again, we can get participation from people and determine where and when and if we 

should be charging fees. 

Moving on to the last area, the area of integrated work to provide for healthy forests. In that area in 2006, the Forest Service 

is going to reduce hazardous fuels on 2.8 million acres. Now, a million acres of that will be done through other kind of nonhazardous 

fuels dollars. 

The point there is that we want to take our wildlife dollars and 

our timber stand improvement dollars and the timber sales and 

forest product dollars and focus those dollars in areas where we 

can achieve the objectives of those dollars, but also do it in places 

where we have fuels problems, where we can treat fuels and get 

multiple benefits. 

By doing a better job of integrating the work among the different 

functions so that we can get more benefits from each dollar that 

we spend on the land, I think we can end up improving our efficiency and accomplishing more work. 

So, again, I am looking forward to working with you. It is a tight 

budget. We will deliver our programs, though, by focusing on the 

right priorities, by improving our efficiency, and by integrating our 

work. 

I would be happy to answer any questions and I am looking forward to that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bosworth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF FOREST SERVICE,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, thank you for 

this opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Budget for the Forest Service. I am privileged to be here with you today. Let me first say, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman, how much I appreciate the support you have given the 

Forest Service as we implement our new administrative service center in Albuquerque. Establishing this center is an important component of the agency’s plan 

to deliver its mission in the most efficient way possible. 

I am pleased to discuss the President’s FY 2006 Budget request for the Forest 

Service, which totals $4.07 billion in discretionary funding. It emphasizes the top 

priorities of the agency, especially the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, that 

are essential to improving the sustainability and health of the nation’s forests and 

rangelands. First, I will discuss the future direction of the Forest Service. Then, I 

will describe our efforts to reduce wildfire threats and costs. For the remainder of 

my testimony, I will highlight programs and legislative proposals that reflect new 

directives or shifts in emphasis for FY 2006. 

FUTURE DIRECTION OF THE FOREST SERVICE

This year the Forest Service celebrates its 100th anniversary. We are commemorating a century of caring for America’s national treasures. One hundred years ago, 

America’s first forester, Gifford Pinchot, recognized that ‘‘our responsibility to the 

Nation is to be more than careful stewards of the land, we must be constant catalysts for positive change.’’ This advice was true in 1905 and remains a guiding light 

now in 2005. Change is inevitable. This is why the Forest Service is committed to 

being a catalyst for positive change into our next century of service. 

Congress created the Forest Service as part of a national strategic response to the 

degradation of watersheds and the substantial loss of forests and wildlife that was 

occurring at a rapid rate during the last half of the 19th century. Let me briefly 

reflect on how much has changed since the Forest Service was established in 1905. 

16

During the last half of the 19th century, the U.S. population had more than tripled 

and forests were being cleared for agriculture at an average rate of 13.5 square 

miles per day. Wildfires were burning 20 to 50 million acres a year between 1880 

and 1930. These fires, as well as unregulated hunting and logging, were threatening 

long-term economic and environmental values. In fact, these activities were tolerated and even encouraged in the name of economic development, but it had become 

increasing clear that what was going on was unsustainable. 

Establishing the Forest Service in 1905 created a direct response to these threats. 

This response has been successful. The decline in U.S. forest land has stabilized and 

forest acreage is now about what it was in 1905. In fact, forest land in the Northeast has actually increased by 26 million acres since the Forest Service was established. Areas burned by wildfire have declined 90 percent since the 1930s. Forest 

growth has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Tens of millions of acres of cutover 

lands that existed in 1905 have been reforested. Many of these are now mature forests whereas other reforested lands have been harvested a second time and are 

starting a new cycle. While some wildlife species continue to face threats, many others that were greatly depleted or nearly extinct in 1905 have increased dramatically, 

such as Rocky Mountain elk and wild turkey. 

The Forest Service has played a key role over the past 100 years in creating the 

changes that have touched our landscapes. In January, the agency convened a Centennial Congress in Washington D.C. to discuss these changes and the future 100 

years of the Forest Service. Delegates to the Congress examined issues ranging from 

engaging the public in land management decisions to rewarding forest owners for 

carbon sequestration, delivering clean water, and providing other multiple-use benefits. We discussed how American society shifted from rural and agrarian to urban 

and industrialized. This in turn influenced the mix of uses and values the public 

seeks from its public lands. Today we see increased demands for recreation, greater 

consumption of natural resources, and mounting pressure on public lands from new 

development. Yet, at the same time, the public is expressing greater concern over 

the need for sustainable resource management. 

This historical shift places us in a conservation era that focuses on ecological restoration and long-term sustainability. We must manage the land for long-term ecosystem health and sustainable uses while meaningfully engaging the public in our 

decision-making. Land managers must be adaptable, innovative, and welcoming of 

new information, ideas, and perspectives. In the end, to be that constant catalyst 

for positive change in this era, the Forest Service must be more collaborative, accountable, and efficient in managing our natural resources. 

In the face of constant change, Americans must examine their consumption 

choices as an important aspect of sustainable development and ecosystem health. 

The United States consumes more wood than any other country. We also consume 

far more timber than we produce. The Forest Service has an opportunity to promote 

sustainable wood production and consumption. For example, Americans build roughly 1.5 million single-family houses each year, which consume roughly 22 billion 

board feet of lumber. At the same time, we lose approximately 17 percent of this 

amount to fire each year, which is equivalent to 250,000 new houses. We also lose 

a significant amount to insects and diseases. If we could salvage some of this lost 

wood, without compromising ecosystem health, we could help minimize our need to 

import wood. When imports encourage illegal or unsustainable environmental practices abroad, then there’s a problem. This is why the Forest Service is assisting the 

State Department with implementing the President’s initiative against selling illegal logs. The goal of the initiative is to combat illegal logging and the sale of illegally harvested timber products. But, minimizing consumption from foreign forests 

is only part of the equation. If we want healthy and resilient ecosystems and communities, then we need intelligent consumption balanced with sustainable management of our nation’s forests and rangelands. 

WE ARE IMPLEMENTING A LONG-TERM STRATEGY TO REDUCE WILDFIRE THREATS

Restoring fire-dependent ecosystems is the long-term solution to reduce the harmful effects of catastrophic wildfire. Restoration work involves eliminating the buildup of hazardous fuels so that natural fire regimes may be reestablished. The results 

of this effort may, in some cases, take several years before we begin to see significant changes in the way fire burns across the landscape. The President’s Healthy 

Forests Initiative (HFI) is helping us tackle the process gridlock that was impeding 

the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems, including the treatment of hazardous 

fuels. 

In support of the HFI, the President’s Budget dedicates $281 million to treat 1.8 

million acres for hazardous fuels. An additional one million acres will be protected 

17

as part of other natural resource management activities. Since 2001, Federal land 

management agencies have treated 11 million acres of hazardous fuels on public 

lands. The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies exceeded our program goals by accomplishing 2.9 million acres of hazardous fuel reduction 

for 2004, including 1.6 million acres in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Fiftyseven percent of these treatments were in the WUI. 

Another part of our long-term restoration strategy is to treat the right acres, in 

the right place, at the right time. Consistent with the President’s recent Executive 

Order on Cooperative Conservation, the Forest Service is working closely with State 

forestry agencies and other partners to coordinate fuel treatments and to provide 

technical and financial assistance to reduce hazardous fuels on State and private 

lands. We are also enlisting the assistance of local communities. The Forest Service 

is working with coalitions of interested citizens to identify those areas in greatest 

need of hazardous fuel treatments. This collaborative effort includes helping communities complete Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). To date, over 600 

such plans have been completed or are in progress across the nation. The number 

of plans will continue to grow as partnerships are formed and high-risk areas are 

identified. A consistent and systematic interagency approach will have a large-scale 

impact on reducing the size and severity of catastrophic wildfires. In addition, in 

FY 2005, a handful of pilot projects supported by our Research program will test 

the strategic placement of fuel treatments on the behavior and effects of wildland 

fires. If this is effective, we will be better positioned to design and locate treatments 

to make a difference in the size, behavior, effects, and costs of fires. This integrated 

approach will maximize our investment in fuel treatments and allow us to build 

more integrated fuel treatment strategies with our partners. 

The expanded stewardship contracting authority provided by Congress is another 

key feature of the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative goal of reducing catastrophic wildfire threats by making treatment of the land more cost-effective and 

collaborative than ever. For example, it allows contractors to make economic use of 

materials removed during restoration or thinning projects. This incentive promotes 

efficient land management practices and creates business opportunities in local communities. Using the stewardship and general contracting authority that Congress 

included in the Tribal Forest Protection Act (P.L. 108-278) enacted last summer, Indian tribes have the opportunity to enter into agreements with the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and the Interior to achieve additional fuels reduction work on federal 

lands adjacent to their reservations. We are working with the Bureau of Land Management and Tribes on implementation guidelines for the Act. 

In all, we have a multi-faceted approach to tackling wildfire threats. Stewardship 

contracting, collaborating with partners, and strategically treating hazardous fuels 

are just a few examples. With your continued support of our hazardous fuels program and the HFI, we can have a long-term impact on minimizing the threat of catastrophic wildfire. 

WE ARE LOOKING FOR NEW WAYS TO REDUCE WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS

In addition to reducing wildland fire threats, we must also reduce fire suppression 

costs. The President’s Budget proposes a $51.6 million increase above the FY 2005 

enacted amount for wildland fire suppression. This reflects the most recent 10-year 

average for suppression costs, which are on an upward trend. Despite going into the 

2004 fire season on the heels of continuing drought and dry fuel conditions, the fire 

activity resulted in a below-average year across most of the nation. Alaska, the lone 

exception, experienced its worst fire season on record with 703 fires and 6,517,200 

acres burned. The lower 48 states experienced 61,873 fires that burned 1,394,144 

acres. We attribute this less severe fire season to more favorable weather, fewer dry 

lightning storms, and to achieving initial attack success rates of over 99 percent. 

Despite this relatively ‘‘good’’ fire season, the agency still expended $726 million 

on wildland fire suppression. The Forest Service will continue to focus on reducing 

wildland fire suppression costs through incentives for efficient funds management, 

effective supply chain management, and rapid demobilization of incident response 

resources. The President’s Budget provides additional incentives for reducing suppression costs by allocating suppression funds to the field and authorizing use of unobligated wildfire suppression funds for hazardous fuels treatment. Thus, a line officer’s success in reducing suppression expenses can be rewarded through the availability of more funds to reduce hazardous fuels. Additionally, the Forest Service will 

work with the independent panel that was established by Congress to assess the 

agency’s management of large wildland fires. The panel’s first report on the FY 2004 

fire season will be completed soon. 

18

RESEARCH GUIDES OUR DECISIONS AND DELIVERS NEW SOLUTIONS

In addition to these efforts, hazardous fuels reduction is critical to minimizing 

wildland fire suppression costs. Creating market-based incentives for the removal 

of this ‘‘biomass’’ is an important aspect of the agency’s Forest and Rangeland Research program. The President’s budget includes a $10 million request for capital 

improvements in our Forest Products Lab, which has been a world leader in developing innovative products made from wood and other forest materials. Maximizing 

use of forest biomass can complement forest management, provide jobs in local communities, and offer a renewable energy source for our country. The agency’s Research program is critical for developing new technologies that make economic use 

of unmarketable and other salvageable forest materials while meeting our resource 

management needs. For example, the Lab developed a new composite material for 

residential siding made of recycled plastic and wood from Juniper and Salt Cedar, 

two tree species that contribute to hazardous fuel loads in the Southwest. Biomass 

utilization offers a host of opportunities, many of which are yet to be discovered. 

For this reason, we are pleased that the President’s Budget includes such an important investment in our country’s future. 

The President’s Budget also includes a $12.8 million boost in research to fund the 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program to cover 100 percent of America’s forests with an annual inventory. The FIA is the nation’s only forest census, which has 

been keeping track of the heartbeat and other vital statistics of America’s forests 

for roughly 75 years. FIA is the only program delivering continuous and comprehensive assessments of our forests in a nationally consistent manner across all land 

ownerships. Policy and programmatic decisions hinge on what the census tells us 

about forest health. The FIA’s up-to-date monitoring, coupled with cutting-edge research and our State and Private Forestry programs, also play a key role in addressing the emerging threat of invasive species. The FIA is critical to assessing our 

current progress in implementing our Invasive Species Strategic Plan. Moreover, 

FIA information will feed into the two national Early Warning System Centers that 

we are establishing in FY 2006 to identify, detect, and rapidly respond to environmental threats, such as invasive species, diseases, insects, and fire. 

OUR NEW PLANNING PROCESS IS MORE FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT, AND RESPONSIVE

Our future forest planning efforts will focus more on emerging threats, such as 

invasive species, wildfires, and unmanaged recreation. To meet these challenges, the 

Forest Service recently published a planning rule that offers greater flexibility for 

land managers. The rule establishes a dynamic planning process that is less bureaucratic, emphasizes science, and provides more opportunity for public involvement 

earlier in the planning stages. Moreover, land management plans must be more 

strategic, transparent, timely, and cost-effective. 

This new planning process directs each forest and grassland unit to adopt an Environmental Management System (EMS), which is an adaptive management tool designed to provide feedback to land managers on all phases of land decisions. A key 

feature of the EMS requires independent audits of our agency’s performance at 5-

year intervals to ensure that we are achieving the plan’s goals. The EMS will 

ground our decisions in science and strengthen our accountability. 

Public involvement in our decisions also makes us more accountable. This is why 

the rule requires opportunities for public involvement at four key stages in the planning process. The rule also establishes a pre-decisional objection process that replaces our agency’s costly and lengthy appeals process. These new features encourage the public to participate with land managers in the early planning stages to resolve any issues and concerns. This will be less adversarial than in the past where 

some people waited until after a final decision to make their concerns known by filing an appeal. Under the old rule, it typically took five to seven years to revise a 

15-year land management plan, and in the case of one forest, cost as much as $5.5 

million. Under the new rule, a plan revision will take approximately two to three 

years and cost much less. 

WE CAN REAP MULTIPLE BENEFITS FROM PRESERVING OPEN SPACE

The President’s Budget dedicates $80 million to the Forest Legacy Program, 

which will protect an estimated 300,000 priority acres in FY 2006. This program is 

an excellent tool for reducing the loss of open space and saving working forests. This 

program is successful, in part, because it places the important decisions of how and 

where to protect open space in the hands of states, local governments, individual 

landowners, and non-profit partners. Protection of open space serves multiple purposes that go beyond the obvious benefit of supporting biodiversity, maintaining sceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 May 27, 2005 Jkt 021331 PO 10929 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21331.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
19

nic beauty, and preventing conversion of land to undesirable uses. More open space 

directly encourages and supports working forests, working farms, and working 

ranches. This is a value-added benefit that makes it profitable to maintain open 

space. We need to maintain ‘‘working forests’’—those that are managed to produce 

economic and environmental benefits. Study after study shows that conservation of 

forests is one of the best methods for keeping our drinking water safe and clean. 

Another key to this program’s success is that it leverages millions of dollars at 

the local level. For example, each Federal dollar typically leverages an equal amount 

in non-Federal contributions. Since 1992, a $197 million Federal investment has 

protected over $381 million of land value, encompassing over 1 million acres 

through conservation easements and land purchases. We hope that you will continue to support this important program. The President’s Budget also proposes an increase of $5 million for the Forest 

Stewardship Program, which provides planning and management assistance to 

thousands of America’s private forest owners. Federal funds are leveraged by contributions from State forestry agencies that deliver this program. The improved forest management that results from this program benefits all Americans by providing 

a full range of ecosystem services, including clean water and air, habitat for wildlife, 

and forest products. 

WE HAVE NEW APPROACHES TO TACKLE THE PUBLIC’S GROWING RECREATION NEEDS

National forests and grasslands are an integral connection between the American 

public and their desire to experience the great outdoors. The Forest Service hosts 

more than two hundred million recreation visitors each year. Reconciling this demand within the limits of maintaining sustainable ecosystems is becoming a greater 

challenge each year. To address this issue, we are looking at a variety of new approaches to keep us in the forefront of meeting visitors’ expectations of having safe 

and enjoyable recreational experiences. Last year President Bush signed into law 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. This Act allows the Forest Service 

to charge modest fees at recreation sites that can be used to help maintain and improve the recreational experience of our visitors. The vast majority of recreation 

sites and services will continue to be free for activities such as horseback riding, 

walking, hiking, and general access to national forests and grasslands. The Act also 

establishes citizen recreation advisory committees that will provide important input 

on implementation of the fee program. We look forward to working with these committees and Congress to ensure that the public is fully involved and fees are fair 

for the value received. 

In the past several years, I have noted that unmanaged recreation, particularly 

with respect to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, is a major challenge to our national 

forests and grasslands. The age of Americans being able to drive anywhere on National Forest System lands has come to an end. 

Over the last three decades, ownership of OHVs in the United States has grown 

from 5 million to 37 million vehicles. National forests are experiencing an explosion 

of user-developed trails beyond our agency’s capacity to manage or maintain. Some 

of these unauthorized trails are causing unacceptable resource damage. In response, 

the Forest Service recently published a proposed regulation on management of 

motor vehicle use on national forests. The regulation would require forests to work 

closely with local communities to designate roads, trails, and areas open to motor 

vehicle use and specify allowable use by vehicle class and time of year. Motor vehicle travel off of the designated system would be prohibited. The agency is currently 

developing the final rule, which is expected to be published later this year. 

WE NEED TO REVERSE THE TREND OF DETERIORATING FACILITIES

Our backlog in deferred maintenance for our infrastructure continues to be a challenge. This backlog is especially critical for facilities that provide recreation opportunities to the public, as well as our administrative sites where employees work and 

provide services to the public. It is appropriate that we look for solutions beyond 

appropriations to tackle our deferred maintenance backlog. For example, this budget 

proposes a new incentive-based approach to reduce our maintenance backlog for administrative sites and visitor centers. Moreover, the President’s Budget proposes 

new legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange administrative sites that are no longer needed for National Forest System purposes. 

The legislation will facilitate the timely disposal of administrative sites and free up 

dollars to invest back in existing or replacement facilities. It will also provide for 

the use of a working capital fund for the performance of routine maintenance. These 

reforms will assist the agency in maintaining and improving the quality of its facility assets. 

20

WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY

The Forest Service will continue agency-wide efforts to improve performance and 

financial management accountability in FY 2006. We have already made significant 

progress toward this goal. I am proud to report that the Government Accountability 

Office removed the Forest Service from its ‘‘high risk’’ list because we achieved a 

third consecutive ‘‘clean’’ audit opinion and are implementing significant organizational changes that assure sustainability in financial management. Not only is this 

an important accomplishment for our agency, but it demonstrates our serious commitment to make continued improvements in financial management, as well as 

build efficiency into other administrative areas that have been burdened with outdated policies and decentralized processes. While I am pleased with our financial 

management improvement, I must also acknowledge that attaining this milestone 

simply means that we are now balancing our checkbook—something the public 

should expect as the norm. Keeping the checkbook balanced will allow the agency 

to better focus on its natural resource management functions. 

Our Financial Management Improvement Project is moving forward as planned. 

Later this month, the new Albuquerque Service Center will be operational, with 

phased implementation throughout this fiscal year. This new center, which you have 

been so supportive of, will provide financial and budgetary services to the agency 

using performance standards that focus on customer service, efficiency, and data 

quality. With full implementation of financial management reforms, the Forest 

Service anticipates that it will realize a $35 million in annual savings. Additionally, 

when other reforms are implemented, the annual savings will increase to $91 million. 

A key element of quality financial management is the ability to link funding and 

expenditures to the strategic goals of the agency. In response to the Budget and Performance Integration initiative in the President’s Management Agenda and the Government Performance and Results Act, the Forest Service is presenting an improving performance-based budget year after year. In FY 2004, the Forest Service completed a new strategic plan. This planning blueprint has helped the Forest Service 

and its field units develop programs of work that address our natural resource 

needs while maximizing limited resources and improving performance accountability. The strategic plan was the driving force in making budget decisions and requests for FY 2006. With important system enhancements, the Forest Service will 

be able to provide project-specific information about FY 2006 expenditures with direct linkage to our strategic plan’s goals and objectives. 

To assure that the Forest Service’s annual activities are appropriately aligned 

with its Strategic Plan, the agency is making effective use of the Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART). The PART process has been used in the past to develop more effective performance measures and emphasis in programs, including 

wildland fire management, capital improvement and maintenance, Forest Legacy, 

and invasive species. Two additional programs will be evaluated in support of the 

FY 2006 President’s Budget. 

CONCLUSION

The President’s Budget for FY 2006 delivers funding for innovative approaches as 

well as long-standing programs that have served the land and the American public 

well. The President’s Budget also demonstrates that the Forest Service must use incentive-based approaches to reduce costs and accomplish its mission. We must continue to work closely with Federal and non-Federal partners to leverage alternative 

funds to accomplish our program of work. As I said at the beginning of my testimony, we must move forward with a renewed interest in collaboration, efficiency, 

and accountability as we enter this new century of service. We must be rapid responders, but we must also respond to change with great care. After all, we are the 

trustees of America’s greatest natural resources. 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President’s Budget. I look forward 

to working with you to implement our FY 2006 program and am happy to answer 

any questions you may have.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Chief, Secretary Rey. 

We have been joined by Senator Salazar. 

Ken, do you have any opening comment you would like to make 

before we start the questioning rounds? 

Senator SALAZAR. I would simply submit my opening statement 

for the record. 

21

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]

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

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning to members of the committee, and welcome Chief Bosworth and Under Secretary Rey. 

I am glad to be here for these gentlemen’s respective testimony on the President’s 

proposed budget for the Forest Service. Colorado has eleven National Forests in all 

areas throughout our great state. These lands provide great opportunities for Coloradans and all to experience natural wildlife. 

My priorities for the Forest Service Budget for FY 2006 are clear: we must ensure 

that we provide appropriate funding for fire management and prevention and adequate maintenance of existing facilities and access roads. Also, we must ensure that 

it is affordable for our citizens to enter and enjoy our National Forests. 

Last week, I was home in Colorado. I traveled over 2,000 miles and conducted 17 

meetings with local leaders, elected officials, and citizens. During the week I repeatedly heard from Coloradans who have concerns about the President’s budget and 

what it means for Colorado. 

I am very concerned by the Administration’s continued cuts to land management 

planning. The ongoing staffing shortages within the Forest Service prevent many 

National Forests from completing plan revisions. Staffing continues to decrease. The 

FY 2006 budget proposes a 30% reduction from FY 2005, or a cut of over 100 full 

time equivalents (employees). 

At the same time, road maintenance continues to be a significant needed improvement for the Forest Service. In 2004, the Forest Service reported that deferred road 

maintenance needs were approximately $10 billion. Even with this backlog the 

agency continues to propose road building in roadless areas—principally for oil and 

gas development as well as commercial logging. My concern is that we maintain our 

existing roads before we start creating additional responsibilities that the Forest 

Service has neither the resources nor the personal adequately to manage. 

Finally, I am concerned by the Administration’s continued lack of funding for the 

National Fire Plan. The FY 2006 budget proposes an 84% cut from the FY 2005 

level for Rehabilitation and Restoration, an $88 million cut for Community Assistance and over $30 million in cuts for the monitoring of forest fire areas. 

I am hopeful that we will have the opportunity to address these issues today with 

Chief Bosworth and Under Secretary Rey. 

Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Well, I understand we have a bit of a reprieve. 

The vote will probably not start until around 11. So let us get 

started with the round of questions. We will do 5-minute rounds 

and try to move as rapidly as we can through, but at the same 

time, I think, cover the issues that many of us are concerned about. 

Again, let me thank you both for being here and the testimony 

you have offered. 

Let me begin with the proposal to sell excess properties and retain the revenues. As in past years, I assume these are small lots 

or buildings that the agency no longer has any need for. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. REY. That’s correct. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. 

Mr. REY. Buildings and the lots underneath them. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. I note that you have proposed significant reductions in capital improvement line items as well as facility construction and maintenance, road construction and maintenance, 

and trail construction and maintenance. 

If I follow your proposal, you will sell some excess properties and 

use part of the revenue to help pay for facility construction and 

maintenance and some to acquire new facilities and/or new lands. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. REY. Facilities. 

22

Senator CRAIG. Facilities, not land? 

Mr. REY. Correct. 

Senator CRAIG. Approximately how much of the revenue will be 

used to pay for facility construction and maintenance—your 

guesstimation? 

Mr. REY. Probably initially most of it. 

Senator CRAIG. But it will not be used to acquire lands; is that 

correct? 

Mr. REY. That would not be our intention. 

Senator CRAIG. How would the Department feel if we adopted a 

proposal but direct that 90 percent of the revenue be used largely 

to improve forest health conditions on our national forests? 

Mr. REY. Well, you could obviously do that. What we were trying 

to do is match how we allocated our budget priorities in line with 

this proposal. So a good reason that we took a cut in facilities 

maintenance, reprogramming that money into things like healthy 

forest work, was because we assumed that if you looked favorably 

upon enactment of this legislation, we would make up the difference in the revenues generated from the passage of the legislation. 

Senator CRAIG. In the mandatory appropriations section of the 

bill, I note an increase of $36 million in the land acquisition and 

enhancements section. 

Am I correct that the total requested budget for land acquisition, 

when you add in the discretionary and mandatory line items together, is about 76 million? Could you explain that, please? 

Mr. KASHDAN. Yes. Senator Craig, the receipts you are referring 

to in the land acquisition and enhancement fund is the title of a 

treasury account that has multiple activities in it. 

In fact, what you had mentioned regarding the receipts from the 

sale of facilities is the deposit. Those deposits are reflected in that 

account. So that money is not for land acquisition. The amount of 

land acquisition is only what is in the discretionary account. 

Mr. REY. Approximately $40 million. 

Senator CRAIG. So do I understand your proposal correctly that 

revenues from the sale of some of the excess properties will not be 

used to fund these maintenance programs? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. If I could answer that. The purpose of the sale 

of property—administrative sites—would be to take the receipts, 

put them into a fund that would allow us to do building maintenance and facilities maintenance. So that is where those dollars 

would go. 

We would also help make up some of our needs through developing a working capital fund where we would assess each building 

that we have based on the number of square feet. That working 

capital fund would be built up through that assessment as well as 

the revenues from the sale of the properties. 

We believe that we can reduce our backlog in terms of facilities 

maintenance by 25 percent by the year 2010 by implementing 

something like this. 

Mr. REY. And that is a very conservative estimate in our judgment. 

23

Senator CRAIG. Is my assumption correct then that roads and 

trails take the heaviest hit here as it relates to budget and maintenance dollars? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. That would be correct. The facilities maintenance dollars are also down, but our plan for taking care of that 

was as I said. The situation with roads and trails is that we 

would—well, first, let me mention trails. I believe that we can do 

more and more trail maintenance and work through partnerships. 

And I misspoke. It was pointed out to me when I was giving my opening remarks. I said $500,000 worth of partnerships. I should 

have said $500 million. We have gotten a lot of dollars and a lot 

of work from our partners. $500 million is a considerable amount 

when equal to the $500 million that we use in appropriated dollars. 

Trails is an area where we really do well in terms of partners. 

As far as road maintenance, we are going to have to focus our 

road maintenance dollars on those arterial roads and collector 

roads and the roads that have the greatest needs. We are just 

going to have to do a better job of focusing on those, working out 

agreements with counties where they are maintaining roads right 

up to ours, where we can work together to reduce our costs. 

So those are the kinds of things that we want to do to improve 

our ability to do the road maintenance. It is a difficult choice and 

that is an area that we have to work harder in order to be able 

to accomplish what we need to accomplish in terms of road maintenance. 

Mr. REY. Another variable that will affect the size of our road 

maintenance needs will be the final disposition of the Federal Land 

Highway Program funding in the surface transportation legislation. 

There is a revenue stream that has historically been available to 

the Forest Service through that route. 

There are proposals to broaden it and narrow it, so that is a moving target at this point, but one that will ultimately have some relevance to what our overall road maintenance needs will be in the 

future. 

Senator CRAIG. With this difficulty in funding on roads and road 

maintenance, can I take that one step further? And I see my time 

is up, so I will close with this. 

We have forests in Idaho that are currently under the development of a travel plan and a roads plan. The Payette National Forest is a perfect example. They are into that phase now. 

And yet, the Forest Service is out obliterating current roads on 

that forest. They keep coming back to the counties involved and the 

communities involved and saying, well, you have to take this one 

off because we just eliminated it. It has created a substantial anger 

level out there, and it is very frustrating to me. 

If the Forest Service is going to work cooperatively with the communities in the development of a plan for roads, why are they out 

obliterating roads prior to the collaborative effort that might ultimately produce a road plan that could include that road? 

So can I assume we will have a moratorium on road obliteration 

on the Payette and other forests in Idaho until the road plans are 

perfected and finalized? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I guess I would like to look into it a little bit 

more before I would say we would have a moratorium, Mr. ChairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 May 27, 2005 Jkt 021331 PO 10929 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\21331.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
24

man. I am not specifically familiar with what is currently going on 

in the Payette. 

I will say that each forest has gone through a forest road analysis, where they involve the public to figure out the entire transportation system that they have now and what they need. In many 

cases, there are roads that we are obliterating or eliminating that 

have not had people driving on them for years. Now, I know that 

they are not all like that. We have——

Senator CRAIG. Then instead of tank traps and knocking down 

trees, why don’t you rip and seed and let Mother Nature do her 

job? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. In many cases, I would agree with that. In fact, 

that would be the way to go about it. 

Senator CRAIG. I am glad to hear that. That means that you 

would eliminate half of the road obliteration that is currently going 

on in the Payette, Dale. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I will look into the Payette because, as I said, 

I am not familiar with the specifics there. 

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate that. 

[The information follows:]

ROAD CLOSURES AND DECOMMISSIONING IN THE PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST

The Payette National Forest (NF) is currently in the middle of a major effort of 

Access Travel Management, including extensive public involvement. The counties 

have been identified as cooperating agencies and have been intimately involved in 

the process. 

As a result of a completely separate effort, the Payette NF has implemented a 

4-5 year old Vegetation Management EIS Decision identifying existing classified and 

unclassified roads for closure and/or decommissioning in an effort to reduce sediment and restore watershed health. 

CURRENT STATUS

Decommissioning Roads—In fiscal year 2004, the Payette spent over $200,000 

closing and/or decommissioning 28.8 miles of classified and 32 miles of unclassified 

roads. The forest plans to spend $220,000 in fiscal year 2005 to close/decommission 

an additional 24 miles of classified roads and 15.7 miles of unclassified roads. 

Travel Management Planning—The Payette NF has held five public meetings 

seeking public input on travel management options for the forest. Senator Craig’s 

staff in Boise, ID has been involved and the Forest has intensified its public involvement efforts based on feedback provide by the Senator’s staff. A draft EIS will be 

released for public comment during summer 2005. A final EIS and decision are expected during winter 2006.

Mr. BOSWORTH. I do know that we have forests in Idaho where 

there are roads that we are having a lot of problems in terms of 

sedimentation. They have trees in them that are probably that big 

in the middle of the road and that they need to be restored. 

Senator CRAIG. Sure. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. And you know the drainage needs to be pulled 

out. That is part of the obliteration process as well. 

Senator CRAIG. I have taken too much time. Thank you very 

much. 

Let me turn to Senator Bingaman. 

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

Let me start by asking about two New Mexico specific issues that 

I asked about last year when we had this same hearing. 

In both cases, I think there was a pretty clear commitment by 

one or both of you to look into these and get back to us. To my 

25

knowledge, that has not happened. So maybe we can be sure that 

it happens this time, so I do not just make this an annual event. 

One is the Silver City Fire Cache. I visited that location over a 

year ago, prior to the time that I raised it with you before, and I 

was struck by the fact that it is currently located in several different buildings. It is not in a single warehouse, and it seemed to 

me to be a very inadequate facility. 

I had asked if you could look at that and determine whether or 

not it, in fact, is in need of improvement and whether or not you 

could commit to do that. 

And, Mr. Bosworth, I think you indicated when we talked about 

it a year ago that you would look into that and get back to us. I 

did not know if you had any chance to. I have not heard anything 

back. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I thought we had gotten back on all those questions and if we did not get back, I apologize to you. I will make 

sure personally that we respond to that question about the Silver 

City Fire Cache. 

I would also like to say that one of the things that we are doing 

at the same time is looking at our whole fire acquisition, how we 

get supplies and disperse those supplies. We want to modernize 

that whole process so we can be much more efficient than what we 

have been in the past. 

And the Silver City Fire Cache as well as all the rest would be 

a part of that. But your question focuses more on that facility and 

the condition of that facility and whether that needs to be improved or changed. I will get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:]

CURRENT SITUATION

The Silver City Fire Cache is currently operating out of a facility that consists 

of nine separate buildings and storage sheds comprising a total of approximately 

9,000 square feet. Fire cache facilities are also shared by the Grant County Aerial 

Fire Base, the helitack crew, and smokejumpers. The current area of coverage for 

the Silver City Fire Cache includes the State of New Mexico, southeastern Arizona 

and to the 100th Parallel in Texas and Oklahoma. 

The largest building currently being used at the Silver City Fire Cache is scheduled to be converted to an operations building as part of the proposed Grant County 

Aerial Fire Base reconstruction project. Should funding for the Grant County Aerial 

Fire Base be approved prior to the approval of funding for the Silver City Fire 

Cache project, the effectiveness of the Silver City Fire Cache will be drastically reduced due to the loss of warehouse space. 

Plans and specifications for a proposed Silver City Fire Cache construction project 

were completed in FY 2002. 

EXPECTED BUDGET NEEDS

The estimate for construction of the proposed 36,000 square foot Silver City Fire 

Cache project is between $4.5 and $5.0 million. 

REGIONAL PRIORITY FOR SILVER CITY FIRE CACHE

Region 3 of the Forest Service has a long list of Fire Administration & Other 

(FA&O) priorities, consisting of 20 projects, which does not include the Silver City 

Fire Cache. This list was developed in April 2000, using national forest input. All 

the projects submitted were ranked. Based on current funding levels, this list will 

take 25+ years to complete. The Forests have the opportunity each year to propose 

changes in the FA&O funding priorities for their Forest. The Gila National Forest 

has not requested any changes. 

At this time, the Silver City Fire Cache is not a regional priority.

26

Senator BINGAMAN. I will appreciate that. The other issue, and 

this is one that Senator Domenici and I both raised in the hearing 

last year, and that is on the Valles Caldera National Preserve. 

I notice your budget once again requests flat funding, $992,000. 

It was my view last year and it is still my view that that is not 

a realistic funding level for the Forest Service to have with regard 

to the Valles Caldera. We, of course, added some funds here in the 

Congress. 

But, again, this was an issue we raised and urged that you look 

into. And I think there was a commitment to get back to both Senator Domenici and myself on that. 

I think, Secretary Rey, you were the one that we were talking 

to at that time. I did not know if you had a chance to look into this. 

Your statement in last year’s hearing was that I think the 

$992,000 is basically a flat budget response in the absence of analysis that probably needs to be done. 

And I guess my urging is, has that analysis been done? Obviously you are still asking for $992,000. Can you get it done? 

Mr. REY. I think it is fair to say the analysis is done and we are 

going to continue to discuss that issue as this budget unfolds as 

well. 

Senator BINGAMAN. So the analysis was done and you concluded 

that $992,000 was the right amount? 

Mr. REY. Given our other budget priorities, correct. If the only 

question is, what is it going to take to run the Valles Caldera, then 

that is probably a different number. 

Senator BINGAMAN. What is the question then that you were asking in arriving at the $992,000? 

Mr. REY. How will they use the additional money? The assessment is they would use it to continue to operate their existing programs, No. 1. 

No. 2, what is the prospect that they can become more self-sufficient during the current fiscal year? The answer is doubtful in the 

short term. Perhaps in the longer term. 

There is some indication in the legislation that there was an interest in having the trust become a more self-sufficient operation. 

That has not happened and we hope it will still happen. We will 

have to continue to debate what the right level of funding is as we 

try to see if that can happen. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, that is sort of a nonanswer as far as 

I can decipher it. 

Mr. REY. A muddy answer, I will give you that. 

Senator BINGAMAN. I gather that your basic position is that is all 

the money you have asked for and that is all you are planning to 

ask for. But I am not exactly clear as to why this is such a low 

priority relative to the other things you folks request funds for. 

Let me ask about one other issue and that is your budget proposes to eliminate the $7.9 million in funding for the Joint Fire 

Science Program account and instead it suggests that that should 

be funded through the Wildland Fire Preparedness account. 

That account is also scheduled for a budget cut and is also underfunded. It does not seem to me there is any explanation for how 

this additional activity can be funded through there. 

27

We have a chart I am going to put up here that shows what has 

happened to the number of scientists in the Forest Service or employed in the Forest Service. The trend is not a healthy one, at 

least from my perspective. 

To me, this proposed budget is just another indication of the lack 

of concern about the science that is going into decisionmaking there 

at the Forest Service. 

Could either of you respond on that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. First, science is extremely important to the 

operations of the Forest Service. If you look at a trend of the total 

number of employees in the Forest Service during the period of 

time that they are showing there, I think you would see a downward trend in the entire agency. 

In other words—I cannot give you exact figures, but I believe in 

1985, we were probably in the vicinity of 40,000 employees and we 

are probably down to 33 or 34,000, somewhere in that vicinity. This 

reflects part of that decline in terms of our numbers of folks. 

We also believe that we can get good science not just from our 

research and development organization in the Forest Service. We 

have good research scientists and we want to continue with a very 

viable research organization, but we also want to do a better job 

of partnering with universities and other institutions that are 

doing good research. We have increased that over that same period 

of time so that we can get their research and apply that. 

We are also putting more emphasis on technology transfer so 

that the good science and increased knowledge that we receive gets 

into the hands of the folks who are on the ground so they can make 

better use of it—both in the public and private lands, as well as 

national forest lands. 

So while that does reflect a decline, and it is a decline that I am 

not real thrilled about, I do want us to get as efficient as we can 

in terms of how we do our research and how we apply it. 

Senator BINGAMAN. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. 

First I want to thank Senator Craig. I was not here when the 

questioning started, but somebody told me they were watching the 

television that showed what you all were doing. I do not think you 

all were smiling. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You were rough. 

Senator BINGAMAN. We will work on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, uno poco. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are doing a little better. What we are saying 

is we want to be tough on you, but we do not want you to have 

to frown too much. So we want a smile. I thank Senator Craig for 

taking over in my stead. 

I want to ask Senator Thomas, you might have to do it a little 

bit for me again. I have to do one other thing, but I will be back. 

I am not going to ask any questions, but I am going to tell you, 

Mr. Rey, with reference to the Valles Caldera, I think it may be 

something that you ought to look at what you think they are doing 

to become self-sufficient. They think they are trying. We think they 

are trying. But you might objectively say we do not think they are 

28

doing some of these things that could have been done. It might be 

more offensive to do it than not to do, but it might be helpful. 

I myself have thought they should do some things they are not 

doing. Maybe Senator Bingaman has. You know, we are trying to 

get there. The law does not say next week or next month. If you 

read it carefully, it says eventually. 

So I just get that to you from my own advice, my own thoughts. 

Senator. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. 

It is not easy to deal with this thing. Someone said it is kind of 

like going to heaven. We all want to go, but we do not want to do 

the things necessary to get there. That is kind of the same with 

the deficit. We want to reduce it, but we do not want to do what 

is necessary to cause that to happen. 

One of the cuts, as I understand, is State and Private Forestry 

which includes payments for volunteer fire departments. Is that 

the case and is not that a little tough not to be able to do that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. There are two parts to that. There are dollars 

that go for volunteer fire departments that are in communities that 

are generally less than 10,000 people and then there are dollars 

that go to the States for fire assistance for the larger communities. 

Our budget would keep the volunteer fire departments the same. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We would not be taking the cuts there. The cuts 

would be in the dollars that go to the State for fire assistance for 

the larger communities. 

The Department of Homeland Security has a very large grant 

program that will also focus on communities and fire departments 

in larger communities, somewhere upwards of $700 million. 

We would be working with the Department of Homeland Security 

in helping identify where some of those dollars would go in those 

larger communities. 

Senator THOMAS. Good. As you know, there has been some discussion and we passed something on the demonstration fee. There 

is a good deal of concern about fees and what sort of facilities are 

identified. I notice you have that as an income factor. 

Have you decided what the criteria are going to be for charging 

fees on the Forest Service? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. No. We have not completed that portion yet. One 

of the things that we would be doing is we are still looking to see 

about establishing recreational advisory councils and they would 

help us set the criteria on specific areas. We are currently working 

on developing the specific criteria that would apply and there are 

several parts to it. 

What we want to do with that is to make sure that we are doing 

this in a way that people who are going to be using the national 

forests will support the fees. We will then make sure that we are 

putting the revenues back into the places where we collected the 

dollars and make sure we are doing improvements that people 

want, that we are not just picking those things ourselves. 

Senator THOMAS. Some visitors’ improvements and so on? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, yes. There are a lot of things that the public would like us to work on and sometimes we think something difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 May 27, 2005 Jkt 021331 PO 10929 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\21331.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
29

ferent ought to be worked on. We need to pull those two things together much closer. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. Budget cuts in land management planning. I don’t know exactly what that means. You indicated maybe 

doing something to reduce the length of these forest plans. Is this 

a factor in that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, we have a final planning rule that we came 

out with in December. That planning rule calls for some fairly significant changes. Within that planning rule, we also have a proposal to use categoric exclusions for forest plans. 

The whole notion is that what we would do is you would lessen 

the amount of time up front doing analysis and developing alternatives. We would reduce that amount of time and instead we 

would do more work in terms of monitoring and independent audits 

on the back side so that we can make adjustments based upon 

what we know. 

In the past, I believe we spent way too much time trying to guess 

what might happen under every alternative rather than actually 

going out and monitoring what is taking place. We should then be 

making adjustments based upon that and doing it in a way where 

the public is heavily involved and have independent auditors look 

at our work. 

That should shrink the length of time down significantly that it 

takes us to do a forest plan. We believe that we will be able to revise forest plans in 2 to 3 years as opposed to 8 to 10 years. 

Senator THOMAS. 8 to 10 years. I hope so. 

I have been spending quite a bit of time on the endangered species thing and too often that is being used as a land management 

tool and it does not seem as if the agencies necessarily have 

worked together as closely as they might with respect to that. 

But my time is over. I just urge you to work on the endangered 

species so that those decisions can be more clearly made. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Chief, like others on this committee, I really put 

my heart and soul into the forest health legislation. I basically did 

not even leave the floor of the Senate while we were considering 

it. 

I will tell you I am very troubled by the approach that you all 

are taking and it is both in terms of the numbers, and I will go 

through those, but also even in terms of the way you describe the 

agency’s work. 

Even during the course of the debate, I thought we were finally 

making some headway in terms of changing our approach with respect to fires. We were not going to put all the focus on suppression, but we were going to go into these key kinds of areas, rehabilitation and restoration. 

And even when you were here during the course of the legislation, you talked about fire plans, you talked about the number of 

acres being treated in communities. And today you basically told us 

we were back to the old days. You talked about knocking back fires 

and those were your words, not mine. 99 percent of the fires 

knocked back. 

30

And certainly the numbers reflect the way that you have described it as well. I mean, the budget shifts the money again into 

suppression and away from rehabilitation and restoration. 

And so why don’t you give me your take on it because I want to 

make this bipartisan wall work. We have 80 votes and we did not 

get 80 votes by accident. Senator Craig, all of my colleagues here, 

we wanted to make a dramatic shift. 

And now both in terms of the budget numbers and certainly just 

the way you have described it, it just looks like we are going back 

to the old days. We are going backward, not forward. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Senator Wyden, I don’t agree. I do believe that 

our budget proposal——

Senator WYDEN. You did not describe it differently 2 years ago? 

I will bring you the words. You talked about acres treated and you 

talked about community fire plans and today you talked about 

knocking back 99 percent of the fires. 

The budget numbers have shifted. So both in terms of the way 

you described it and the budget numbers, there has been a change. 

Is that wrong? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. The best way to reduce the amount of fire suppression is to do the kinds of fuels treatment work that we need, 

particularly in and around communities, so that we can reduce the 

fire hazard in those communities. That is the best long-term way 

in my view to reduce that whole chunk of fire suppression dollars. 

In the meantime, we are going to continue to request a 10-year 

average in terms of our fire suppression dollars so that we can help 

protect communities. 

Our focus has to be on healthier forests. It has to be on reintroducing fire into some of these fire-adapted ecosystems in a way 

that we can control it and maintain it using fire. 

We allow far more fires to burn today than we have in the past. 

In terms of in the back country where we have fire management 

plans, we allow fires to burn for purposes to improve the health of 

those forests. 

So, in fact, I believe that we——

Senator WYDEN. But the budget numbers, Chief, contradict that 

statement. There has been a cut in cooperative fire assistance by 

$31.6 million. That is 30 percent. A cut in Forest Health Management, a cut in Cooperative Forestry, a cut in State and Private Forestry. 

I mean, I want to work with you and that is why we did pursue 

a bipartisan strategy in the forest health area. But those are the 

numbers. The numbers are a 32—in fact, it was even higher. Excuse me. I misstated it. It is at $32 million, a 54-percent cut in Cooperative Fire Assistance. 

I mean, those cooperative programs are the places where we are 

going to carry out the new and bipartisan vision and they are all 

being cut 30, 40, and 50 percent. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Much of the Cooperative Fire Assistance to the 

States is for dollars that go to fire departments in communities for 

fire suppression. 

We also have the opportunity to take a percentage of our hazardous fuels dollars and grant that to communities to do work on 

private land from our hazardous fuels account. We are proposing 

31

to increase by $18 million our hazardous fuels dollars. Again, a 

portion of that can be granted to communities to do work on private land. 

So there are a number of areas, a number of places where we believe that we can do work on private lands to help. Through our 

community fire planning process, we work together with the communities to decide and identify those places where we can strategically locate our treatments to help protect the communities. 

That is a big part of our program. Those are all things that we 

were not talking about 4 or 5 years ago. 

Mr. REY. In fairness to the Chief, the 99 percent success rate on 

initial attack was my statement. That was in response to the hearing we had last year after we grounded the air tankers when I 

think most of the members of this committee thought we were 

going to leave the forests to burn. 

My point was that we were more successful with a reconfiguration fleet than we had been the previous year. The fact that we are 

successful in extinguishing fires on initial attack has no bearing on 

the fact that we want fires to burn where we know that they can 

burn safely and within prescription. 

We are committed to doing more of that and we have done more 

of that. The acres burned under prescription this past year were, 

as were the acres treated, an all-time record. 

You are correct, Senator, that if you look at the way we propose 

to fund the Healthy Forests Initiative, we have in this budget proposal emphasized treatment on Federal land as opposed to treatment on non-Federal land. And we did that for two reasons. 

First, we are the only ones who are paying to treat Federal land. 

There is nobody else doing it. 

Second, the Federal lands by and large are in worse shape from 

a fuels standpoint than the non-Federal lands. The Federal lands 

within the wildland-urban interface are among the worst Federal 

lands. 

And there is probably a third reason and that is that in many 

of these other line items, the ones that you indicated, there are 

other finances available through other Federal Government programs to provide assistance to State and local governments to do 

that work, in some cases more efficiently than our delivery program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask for something for 

the record? 

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, absolutely. 

Senator THOMAS. Chief, what I would like, because I do not share 

the view that there are other programs, I would like you to give 

me a detailed list of the other areas of Federal funding where you 

can offset the cuts that are in your budget because I have outlined 

the cuts in cooperative forestry. I do not believe the funds are 

available in other areas, but I want to be fair to you all. I would 

like a list. Can I have that within 30 days? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We can get you that list. I do not want to imply 

that for every dollar that we are reducing that there is a dollar 

available somewhere else, but it will offset some of that. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. That will be fine. Thank you. 

32

[The information follows:]

EXAMPLES OF USDA PROGRAMS THAT CAN ASSIST

FOREST-DEPENDENT RURAL COMMUNITIES

USDA’s Rural and Community Development (RD) programs can address priority 

needs in rural areas, including assistance to rural communities and forest-based industries, through several programs. These programs focus largely on issues concerning agricultural land. The following summarizes USDA programs, other than 

Forest Service programs, that could provide financial and technical assistance to forest based rural communities:

USDA Agency Program Community Development Issues 

RD-RBS* ...... Rural Business Opportunity Grants.Promote sustainable economic development in rural communities with exceptional needs. Small total number of 

awards, given to both agriculture and 

forest based communities. 

RD-RBS ........ Rural Business Enterprise Grants.Finance and facilitate development of 

small and emerging private business 

enterprises. Grants do not go directly 

to businesses. Primary natural resource use is agricultural. 

RD-RBS ........ Rural Economic Development Loans and 

Grants.

Grants to establish a revolving loan fund 

for community development, telecommunications, job training, medical 

care, etc. No focus on forestry or natural resources. 

RD-RBS ........ Intermediary Re-lending 

Program.

Grants for intermediaries to re-lend for 

business establishment or expansion, 

job creation or expansion, or community development projects. No focus on 

land management or natural resources. 

RD-RBS ........ Business and Industry 

Guaranteed Loans.

Stimulates rural economies with 80% 

guarantee of a loan made by a commercial lender. Used for equipment, 

real estate, debt refinancing. Focused 

on agriculture. 

RD-RBS ........ Cooperative Development Grants.Grants to improve the economic condition or rural areas through the development of new cooperatives and improvement of existing cooperatives. 

* Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let us stay on the fire subject for just a moment. As you know, 

we had a horrific fire season last summer in Alaska. We lost 6.5 

million acres. It was the worst fire season on record for the State 

since we have been recording this. 

The notes that I have here indicate that there were 703 fires. For 

some reason, I am remembering it as a much larger number. But 

any way you cut it, it was huge. It was a devastating loss for us. 

You know many of those issues. You know that we have got a 

hearing coming up on how all the agencies that were involved 

worked together or what worked right and what did not work right. 

But we have got some issues up north that cause me to believe, 

coming from a very unscientific approach, that we are going to 

have another tough fire year. Our temperatures in the interior are 

increasing. 

33

We are still dealing with spruce bark infestation, although perhaps not at levels that we have seen in the past, but I think it is 

still going to be tough year. And I think other Alaskans feel the 

same. 

And, quite honestly, the folks in the interior would really like to 

be able to breathe the air during the summer months instead of 

looking out through a smoke-filled haze. 

So I was somewhat interested in your map that is looking at the 

seasonal wildfire outlook February through August 2005. Alaska is 

all white. I am hoping that perhaps your meteorologists know 

something different and that you are not thinking that Alaska is 

going to have a tough fire season, but maybe we just were not included in the map. But we need to be prepared. 

So my question to you in looking at some of the cuts that we 

have—and this was raised by Senator Wyden and some others, zeroing out the volunteer assistance. Certainly in many instances up 

north, our volunteer fire departments are the first responders to 

many of these Federal land fires. 

I just have real serious concerns about where we are going to be 

and how we work with the Alaska communities that are potentially 

at risk to reduce the fire risks that I think are going to be real 

again this coming summer. So if you could just address some of 

those. 

Mr. REY. Okay. As to your first observation, Alaska is white in 

this particular iteration because our predictive models pick up 

Alaska a little bit later in the year given that the cold weather 

stays longer up there. 

So it will be probably another couple of weeks before we have a 

reasonable prognostication of what the Alaska fire season is going 

to be like, although most of our fire people agree with your suggestion that it could well be another difficult fire season. 

Second, as the chief indicated in response to Senator Wyden, we 

have targeted our cuts away from the volunteer fire departments. 

So the money that we retained in those accounts, the funded volunteer fire fighters are going to stay in those accounts for that purpose. 

What we hope to do with the needs for large fire fighting organizations is to work with the people at FEMA who have a large account for fire fighting assistance, upwards of $700 million, and 

make sure that we coordinate our efforts so that we are addressing 

the primary wild land fire fighting needs among larger communities which is where our cuts would be most heavily felt. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. On the Tongass, the point was made earlier 

about the road funds. We recognize that right now these roads 

have to be constructed to the same specification as a Federal highway which increases the cost and reduces Forest Service timber receipts. 

Now, in southeastern Alaska, we look at those timber roads and 

we certainly recognize that these do not even come close to looking 

like a Federal highway. We need the roads, but the cost of building 

them to this standard is making timber sales in certain areas uneconomic and impairing the viability of, as you know, an already 

struggling timber industry. 

Why do we have to construct these roads to this high standard? 

34

Mr. REY. Well, there are two reasons. But those reasons aside, 

this is something we are looking at. In the past, many of the roads 

that were being constructed were not simply timber roads. They 

were part of what we wanted to establish as part of the arterial 

network or the transportation network for southeast Alaska. Indeed many of the roads in existence on Prince of Whales Island 

today started as timber roads as an initial matter. 

Now they do not serve that function, but they do serve an important function in allowing people to drive between Craig and Thorne 

Bay, for instance. That need is starting to diminish as that system 

has been established. So a smaller number of roads are going to be 

built to that standard for a longer-term purpose. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you see us getting away from that 

standard though? 

Mr. REY. Yes. One of the things we are looking at is being able 

to scale down some of the road standards for roads that are not 

going to have a longer-term or subsequent use after the timber sale 

occurs. So that is something we are working on with the region in 

southeast Alaska. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. REY. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Bosworth, President Bush has frequently vocalized his support for full implementation of the Clinton forest plan which calls 

for 1.1 billion board feet. The Forest Service has changed the survey and management requirements to make the plan work better. 

That assumes it is going to be properly funded. 

Do you believe that your budget does provide the funding sufficient to carry out the President’s commitment to the Northwest 

Forest Plan? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. I believe the budget will—I guess I would 

not want to say a hundred percent, but the budget will be focused. 

We will be getting the dollars mainly through our regular forest 

products appropriation that would allow us to continue to implement the Northwest Forest Plan. 

There are also a number of efficiencies that were not really calculated into some of our original projections when we put together 

the budget justifications. 

Let me speak more to the whole program, not just the Northwest 

Forest Plan. 

I believe our budget justification shows that with those dollars 

that we would be showing somewhere in the vicinity of 1.8 or 1.9 

billion board feet. More recent analysis, now that we have some of 

these different tools, show that we would be approaching more like 

2.4 or 2.5 billion board feet, we believe. 

So there are a number of areas where we think that we will be 

able to do the work that needs to be done in all parts of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Rey, next week the Federal court resumes consideration of 

the Biscuit Fire Rehabilitation Project 21⁄2 years after the fire. 

35

Does the Forest Service budget assume any revenues from the 

salvaged Biscuit fire? 

Mr. REY. I don’t believe our baseline projection assumes any revenue. So anything that comes in as a consequence of harvest activity on the Biscuit salvage would be in excess of the baseline revenues. 

We expected that there would be a considerable amount of litigation surrounding the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project. Our expectations were met and perhaps exceeded. And, therefore, we will wait 

and see how the courts play this out. So far, we have been on a 

winning streak there and I hope that streak continues. 

Senator SMITH. If, however, the court blocks the project from 

moving forward and no revenues are derived from salvage, how will 

the Forest Service pay for the restoration work? 

Mr. REY. We will either have to forego some of the restoration 

work or we will have to reprogram funds from other areas or other 

accounts to do that work. The Biscuit Fire Recovery Project is a holistic project with a substantial amount of recovery work that is dependent upon revenues from the sale of that portion of the burned 

timber that was both merchantable and reasonable to harvest from 

an ecological standpoint. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I gather that Senator Salazar at least indicated he might return. 

How about Senator Bingaman? 

Senator CRAIG. He may. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, I am going to suggest now 

that——

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have one more question. I appreciate the 

opportunity to come back again to the Tongass issue. 

As you know, we have only got one harvest and 12 percent of 

commercial timber on the Tongass in the past hundred years. And 

as we look to the Tongass land management plan, it provides that 

a maximum of 267 million board feet can be harvested from the 

Tongass, yet we are concerned, primarily the Alaska Forest Association is concerned that the Forest Service continues to plan for 

only 100 million board feet annually and is able to deliver only between about 50 to 70 million board feet. 

We don’t have any threatened or endangered species on the 

Tongass and yet we have, through the land management plan, we 

have got several constraints, reserves, buffers that do limit the economically viable timber that can be made available. 

So the question that I have to you this morning is whether the 

Forest Service is committed to preserving and enhancing the timber industry in southeast and whether in your view it is appropriate to revisit or to rethink some of the restrictions that currently 

exist out there as they relate to the Tongass. 

Mr. REY. The short answer to the first question is yes. The short 

answer to the second question is that we have embarked on the 5-

year review of the Tongass Land Management Plan. The issues you 

described will be part of that review. 

You are correct. There are no threatened or endangered species 

or at least terrestrial species on the Tongass. The stellar sea lion 

is within the range of the Tongass. 

36

There is, however, a very robust population of environmental litigants in southeast Alaska, as there is in Oregon. Much of the complexity in fulfilling the President’s commitment to implement the 

Northwest Forest Plan is comparable to the complexity associated 

with fully implementing the Tongass Land Management Plan. That 

is, moving sale offerings through the appeals and litigation processes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And as we recognize, that is incredibly 

tough. I am sure you are aware we are attempting to get a small 

veneer plant in the Ketchikan area up and going. Some of the tactics that have been used of late to pressure the individual that 

wants to move forward with this in my opinion are not only inappropriate, wrong, short-sighted, but really very offensive in their 

approach. 

We have a management plan out there that allows for this and 

yet it is not just the litigation. It is other efforts by individuals that 

will seek to literally shut down the Tongass for any viable timber 

harvesting. That is what we deal with. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the latitude of questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I will talk to you on the floor during the vote about a couple of 

things that pertain to our trip and a couple of other things about 

the budget. 

First I want to thank you all and apologize for not having been 

here myself. I am very pleased to have you here. 

Secretary Rey, I am particularly happy to have you where you 

are. I want to offer just a thought. 

Cutting discretionary spending in the manner that is being recommended there are lots of feelings up here about what we should 

cut, what we should not. There is even some feeling whether discretionary cuts really are so valid over the long haul in terms of 

reducing the deficit. 

But I would urge that—and we are having hearings so we can 

find out. But we do not pass any authorizing bills anymore up here 

just because we cannot get them done. 

So you are going to be in appropriations where the decisions are 

made with reference to the priorities that you have established. I 

know you have gone through all this with OMB, but I hope in that 

process, I know the chairman and ranking member will be interested. 

I think you have to view this very carefully in terms of the 

things we are cutting versus things that are really going to come 

back and haunt the Government. All of these are not insignificant 

expenditures. Some are clearly not needed. And I hope we have hit 

those rather than some that are very much needed. And I think it 

is hard to tell which. 

Mr. Bosworth, you have a terrifically difficult job. Everybody 

wants more and better forests and I think they equate how much 

we give you to spend with that. I am not sure that is correct. I 

think you are impacted by a lot of things. 

What you can and cannot do by law probably has as much impact as what we spend on you or do not give you to spend. But we 

cannot fix that, right? 

37

So I just tell you that some of us know. Some of us are on that 

Appropriations Committee. And whatever we say here will have an 

impact only if we can affect appropriations right. Otherwise, from 

here, they go to Appropriations and all this talk is over with, right? 

So I want to just ask you a couple of things about New Mexico, 

if I might. With reference to Santa Fe, I have a couple of things 

that I need answered. 

Congress has funded a program through the Forest Service to 

thin the watershed that provides 40 percent of the water for the 

city of Santa Fe. The appropriations total about $5.5 million, something in that order, over 4 years. 

First I want to tell you I have been very impressed at how you 

have reduced the potential fire danger which is a terrific problem 

with the water availability for Santa Fe. 

Could you tell me how many acres have been treated and what 

is the cost per acre and are there any major components of the 

costs of thinning this area and how many acres remain and what 

is estimated for the completion? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would like to get that for you and I can get 

that pretty quickly. I do not have it with me today. That was an 

area that I have been also watching. The costs were fairly high for 

a period of time and we were working at getting some of those 

costs per acre down. But I am interested in it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Give it to the ranking member on the Committee, please. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We will do that. 

[The information follows:]

The Santa Fe watershed project includes thinning, prescribed fire, and monitoring 

activities. Final completion of the hazardous fuel reduction project will be completed 

by FY 2007, dependent upon weather and burning conditions. 

To date, 3,638 acres (57%) have been thinned. An additional 1,763 acres (28%) 

will be thinned during FY 2005. The remaining 1,000 acres (15%) are planned to 

be thinned during FY 2006. Completion of the project will cost approximately $1.2 million; $1.1 million in FY 2006, and $100,000 in FY 2007. This includes thinning, prescribed fire, and monitoring costs associated with the project. 

Major components of the costs include:

• A Forest Service contract with Forest Rehab of Libby, MT to carry out the 

thinning work for the project at a cost of $945/acre. • Pile burning accomplished by Forest Service personnel at approximately $50/

acre. All of the thinning projects require pile burning the year following the 

thinning operation.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I need to ask you, has the Forest Service 

identified any other major watersheds that are at risk for catastrophic fire? We happen to have one. It is clear and obvious, but 

maybe there are some others. Could you provide us with information in that regard? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes, we will. In fact, there are other watersheds 

in New Mexico that are at high risk of fire. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you also tell us that you found them and 

is there any effort being made to do something about them? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I will do that. 

[The information follows:]

The Forest Service is engaged in collaborative efforts to prioritize communities 

and watersheds at risk in New Mexico and other States. Project development is taking place through the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) process underway in many New Mexico communities and counties. The Forest Service is an active 

38

participant in CWPP development; the community has the final responsibility to 

complete the CWPP. 

Several watersheds have been identified through collaborative efforts, including 

those associated with the communities of Gallinas, Cloudcroft, Ruidoso, and the 

counties of Alamogordo, Catron, and Grant. Some of these areas have fully developed CWPPs and others are underway. The Forest Service is working with these 

communities to develop restoration plans. Some projects have already occurred in 

areas under these CWPPs. The flexibility to prioritize projects on an annual basis 

is a critical component of a positive and effective relationship with communities.

The CHAIRMAN. I will not talk about the Valle Vidal and the 

issues that have been raised up there with reference to whether 

there is natural gas or the like there, but perhaps we can converse 

on it sometime. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would be happy to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lincoln National Forest, you are aware of what 

that is. There is an Apache sawmill up there. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are aware of that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You can look it up and give us the answer. We 

would like to know what steps you are taking to deal with the 

health of the forest in the Lincoln National Forest and also what 

can the national forest do to contribute to the existence of that 

sawmill, if anything. Would you do that for us? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would be happy to do that as well. There are 

a number of things that we are doing that we can do. But I will 

get you some real specific answers. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you are doing something? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know about it? 

Mr. REY. We are working with the tribe very closely right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And also how much additional timber will you be offering this 

year as compared to last year, speaking of this area? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. For just that specific forest or the Lincoln National Forest? 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. And I would like you to provide me with 

a specific amount of funding that the region will make available in 

the 2006 budget to support the county’s partnership and restoration, the CPR, in New Mexico and Arizona. 

I read somewhere that it was cut out or almost done away with 

or—no? 

Mr. REY. No. We have continued to fund that effort pretty consistently. 

[The information follows:]

The Forest Service is doing a lot to address with forest health issues on the Lincoln National Forest (NF), as well as support the volume needed by the Apache 

Sawmill in White Sands. In FY 2005, the Lincoln NF is using a hazardous fuels 

budget of approximately $3 million to treat 15,000 acres with prescribed burning 

and 15,000 acres with thinning. A capability assessment was prepared for the sawmill, which showed a capacity of about 6 million board feet. The Lincoln NF is preparing approximately the same volume of 5.5 million board feet as it prepared last 

year. 

In addition, in FY 2005 the Forest Service made $100,000 available to the Counties Partnership on Restoration (CPR) in New Mexico and Arizona. The FY 2006 

President’s Budget does not include specific funding for the CPR.

39

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not the one that Senator Bingaman was 

very interested in? 

VOICE. It is a little different. The CFRP. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did he ask about this already? 

VOICE. No, he did not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, what is the name of that? 

VOICE. CFRP. 

The CHAIRMAN. Should I just tell him to give us the information? 

Would you give us the information on the CFRP? 

Mr. REY. Yes. That is the Collaborative Forest Restoration Partnership. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bingaman initiated that and I——

Mr. REY. In a piece of legislation, right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give him that so we would have that 

too? 

Mr. REY. Right. 

[The information follows:]

THE COMMUNITY FOREST RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

The Community Forest Restoration Act of 2000 (Title VI, Public Law 106-393) established a cooperative forest restoration program in New Mexico to provide costshare grants to stakeholders for forest restoration projects on public land to be designed through a collaborative process (the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program). Projects must include a diversity of stakeholders in their design and implementation, and address specified objectives, including: wildfire threat reduction; ecosystem restoration, including non-native tree species reduction; reestablishment of 

historic fire regimes; reforestation; preservation of old and large trees; increased utilization of small diameter trees; and the creation of forest-related local employment. 

The act limits projects to four years, and sets forth cost limits and provisions respecting: collaborative project review and selection; joint monitoring and evaluation; 

and reporting. The act authorizes appropriations of up to $5 million annually, and 

directs the Secretary to convene a technical advisory panel to evaluate proposals 

that may receive funding through the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program. 

The FY 2006 President’s budget continues funding at $5 million. 

The program is designed to encourage different organizations to collaborate on the 

design, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects on a broad spectrum 

of public and tribal lands. Grant money is available for projects on Federal, State, 

tribal, county, or municipal lands in New Mexico. 

One of the goals of the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program is to provide an 

alternative to appeals and litigation the Forest Service typically faces on these 

projects by bringing opposing groups to the table. By working together to apply for 

these grants, small business owners, conservation and environmental groups, community groups, tribes, universities, and other organizations can help reduce the 

threat of wildfire, improve watershed conditions, and bring jobs and job training to 

local communities. 

Tribes, State and local governments, educational institutions, private landowners, 

conservation organizations, non-profit groups, and other interested public and private entities are encouraged to apply for grants. Collaborative partnerships are 

sought to create local employment and/or training opportunities while accomplishing 

forest restoration objectives. 

In FY 2004, the Forest Service received 36 grant proposals in New Mexico requesting more than $10.9 million. A technical advisory panel reviewed the proposals 

and made recommendations on the proposals that best met the objectives of the program. The Forest Service awarded 14 grants totaling approximately $4.1 million.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I think I have to go vote. And what I am 

going to do—it is 11:25. Even though we will not be asking you 

questions, can you wait for us for a little bit? 

Mr. REY. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then we would not have to call you back. I am 

going to say whoever comes back from whichever side, reconvene 

the meeting. I think the Senator Salazar or Senator Bingaman. But 

40

I want to set a deadline, so we do not leave this open and so we 

do not ask questions indefinitely. 

So I am going to say that will happen, but we will close this 

meeting, whoever is here, and if not, I will come back and close it 

at 12:30. Is that fair enough? 

Thank you very much. We are in recess until a senator returns 

and then we will close this at 12:30. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator SALAZAR [presiding]. Let me say this. This is not the 

first time that I get to chair a meeting. Today I gave my maiden 

speech on the floor talking about issues relating to rural America 

and I am delighted to have this opportunity to ask you a few questions at this hearing and then we will go ahead and we will conclude the hearing. 

I have a Colorado-specific question to start out with and that has 

to do with the White River National Forest Management Plan. 

What I wanted to ask you about with respect to that plan and the 

revisions that have been made of that plan is why the changes 

were made. 

I had some communication with some of your staff, with David 

Tenny this morning, and I look forward to the response to the 

questions that we asked of him this morning. 

But let me tell you what my concern is and see whether you can 

help me with this. The sense that I have gotten working on this 

matter and hearing from my constituents in Colorado, in the northwestern part of the State, is that there was a tremendous amount 

of energy that went into the creation of the plan which was approved by Chief Bosworth back in 2002. 

That plan was a plan that had involved thousands upon thousands of hours of public input. And the plan that frankly I think 

the people in northwest Colorado felt good about and yet decisions 

that have been made on the revisions to that plan seem to have 

come out of Washington without the kind of consultation and input 

from the local community that should have been there. 

And here is frankly my concern. My concern is that this is not 

the only revision of a national forest plan that we are going to 

make. And so as we move forward, for example on the Gunnison 

or the Grand Mesa or any of our other forests in the State of Colorado, what is it that is going to keep those forest management 

plans in place once the planning process has been completed given 

what appears to be, at least from the ground at this point, an arbitrary and capricious decision frankly by someone in Washington to 

simply say that the forest plan had already been approved by the 

Chief of the Forest Service should be set aside? 

So I would like either Chief Bosworth or Assistant Secretary Rey 

to respond to that question for me. 

Mr. REY. I would be happy to start and then the Chief can elaborate on that. 

The way our planning process works is that once a plan is completed, notwithstanding how many people participated in the comment period and how much public involvement there was, there is 

a right of administrative appeal. 

41

The final decision to approve a plan is not made by the chief. It 

is made by the regional forester, in this case Regional Forester Cables in Denver. 

If the plan is appealed, the chief is the reviewing officer that has 

to review that appeal in accordance with our regulations and issue 

a decision to either uphold or reverse and remand the plan back 

for further work. 

In addition, if the appellants are dissatisfied with the chief’s decision, they have the opportunity to seek a second level of review 

at the department level, in my office, and either I or one of my deputies then becomes the second reviewing official to review the plan. 

In the case of the White River plan, there were a number of appellants. Those appeals were reviewed. The chief was the first reviewing officer. He made a decision and upheld in part and remanded in part. Some appellants requested a second review. My 

deputy, Dave Tenny, who you met with this morning, did that review and remanded on some additional issues. 

But the remands are not revisions of the plan. Now the plan goes 

back to the forest supervisor and whatever changes are subsequently made will go through a notice and comment period. And 

that is the way our regulations work. 

So there is nothing arbitrary about it or capricious. Certainly, if 

somebody wants to challenge the outcome of the proceeding, they 

have that right in Federal District Court and can avail themselves 

of that particular argument if they think so. But it is an on-therecord review which has been completed now. 

The next step will be for the forest supervisor to take both the 

decision of the Chief and the decision of Deputy Under Secretary 

Tenny, make some changes to the plan in accordance with the remands, and then propose those changes for an additional round of 

public comment. 

Senator SALAZAR. I appreciate your explanation as to the process 

and I know the process well and I know how it works. And I know 

ultimately the legal remedies that are available to somebody who 

is challenging the decisions that are being made. 

In this particular circumstance, you have the chief of the Forest 

Service having made a decision on the plan and that decision in 

part has been reviewed and changed by Deputy Secretary Tenny. 

Can you summarize for me what the impetus was for those 

changes and the specific changes that he ordered to be made in the 

plan? 

Mr. REY. Sure. The impetus was that he was exercising the authority provided for in the Forest Service Appeals Regulations to 

undertake a review of a chief’s decision. 

The substance of them fell into two broad areas and we can give 

you a copy of the decision which would get much more specific. 

One went to how water rights issues are going to be addressed 

to bring the plan into consistency with the water rights policy that 

we have subsequently developed with the State of Colorado 

through a Memorandum of Agreement. 

The second was in regard to provisions to protect the lynx which 

is an introduced species in Colorado. And there again, we wanted 

to bring the provisions of the plan in concert with the Southern 

Rockies conservation strategy that is being developed for the lynx. 

42

We felt that the plan was at some variance with what was happening on other national forests. 

What we think will result is a better mechanism for recognizing 

the State’s role in water rights through the memorandum of understanding that was developed with Colorado. With regard to the 

lynx, we think we will end up with a better protection plan that 

will protect areas where the lynx truly occupies habitat. 

Now both of those issues are going to be taken back to the forest. 

The plan will be amended accordingly and then the public will 

have an opportunity to comment on whether they prefer this or 

whether they find it less desirable. But they would not be excluded 

from that. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me make a comment. I think it is very important for you, Under Secretary Rey, or Chief Bosworth or Deputy 

Under Secretary Tenny to go to Colorado and to explain what has 

happened here in the same way that you were explaining it to me 

here today. 

Regarding the two substantive issues with respect to the decision, it seems to me that the direction of working with Colorado to 

try to address the water issues and the values associated with a 

forest in recognition of state law and working in concert with the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board is an important initiative for 

our country. 

In years past, I had conversations with your predecessors about 

the fact that the Forest Service had spent some $70 million on litigation concerning reserved rights in my state, in the State of Colorado. 

My suggestion at the time to the forest and USDA was that what 

we ought to do is to try to figure out ways in which we could work 

in concert with the state agencies to try to protect those forest values because I thought that would be a much more cost-effective 

way. If we are spending millions of dollars in litigation, it seems 

to me it would be better to be spending that money instead on improving the values that the forest seeks to improve. 

Regarding the second matter relating to the lynx, what I understood from the meeting this morning is that with the Southern 

Rocky Mountain plan that is under consideration, it was felt that 

it was better to integrate what was happening in the White River 

National Forest with what is happening more regionally, I think 

more ecosystem wide, since I am sure the lynx does not recognize 

the boundary of where the White River National Forest ends and 

where it does not. 

So I think it is very important for the people in my State to understand what it is that is happening there. And so I would ask 

you to participate with the individuals that I met with this morning in coming to Colorado and making sure that there is this input 

from people up in the northwest part of Colorado. 

I was in Routt County in the last several days and a number of 

ranchers and other people frankly were very upset about what had 

happened here because they felt that there was some political appointee in Washington, D.C. that was undoing years and years of 

work. There had not been, I think, the kind of explanation and 

communication with them that would have given them the understanding that you are giving here today. 

43

Mr. REY. We would be happy to do that. One of the advantages 

of these hearings is we get invited to Colorado and New Mexico. 

It is a great opportunity. 

Senator SALAZAR. We have a lot of snow in Colorado, so you are 

welcome to come up to the Steamboat. 

Let me just ask one other question and then we will go ahead 

and close the hearing. And that has to do with the streamlining 

proposal that you have on the time line for revisions on forest management plans. 

I know that some of the questions that were asked by colleagues 

on the committee earlier had to do with the sense that maybe it 

is taking too long. Your plan to try to get a revision to forest management plans in less time is an important thing for everybody to 

look at, given the fact that most people think it now takes too long. 

Talk to me just a little bit about what you are planning to do 

with respect to the streamlining of the effort on the revisions of forest management plans, if you can, Chief Bosworth. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. I would be happy to do that. 

We have been operating under a regulation or rule in the development and revision of our forest plans. The most recent rule was 

implemented in 1982. That is when the rule was established that 

we operate under now. 

During that period of time, during the 1980’s and the 1970’s, we 

were doing entirely different kinds of work on national forest lands. 

We had a very large timber harvest program. We were not into the 

fuels treatment like we are today. We did not have the catastrophic 

wildfires that we have today. 

Over time, it evolved where it was taking us 6 or 8 or 10 years 

to develop a revision because of all the processes we were going 

through. We needed to revise our rule so that we could look more 

to the future rather than to deal with the things we had been doing 

20 years ago. 

The threats that face our forests in the future are things like catastrophic wildfire and invasive species and an increased recreation 

demand, loss of open space—some of those kinds of things. 

So we need a rule that will help us move into the future and also 

will be a rule that we can engage the public in more quickly and 

more effectively. And so that is what this rule does. There are several things that it will accomplish. 

I believe one is that it will improve the citizens’ ability to participate in the forest plan revisions because of the fact that we will 

get them done quicker and people do not have to try to stick with 

it for 7 or 8 years. 

The only people that can stick with it are those people who are 

being paid to by the timber industry or the livestock industry or 

the environmental industry or someone. But a person down the 

street that just wants to go to the forest, they cannot do that. They 

cannot stick with it for that long. So that will help citizen participation. 

Also the rule requires adoption of an Environmental Management System which will be—for each forest, that will require an 

independent audit each year of that forest and the implementation 

of that forest plan. That independent audit can be done from outside the Forest Service or from outside the forest. 

44

That will be done by folks that will look at what we have accomplished that year in terms of implementing the forest plan, whether we did what we said we would do and whether we are getting 

the kinds of effects and outcomes that we said we would get. 

It will give us an opportunity to increase the amount of monitoring that we are doing as we implement. We can then make adjustments based upon what we learn together with the public about 

the implementation of those forest plans. 

So I believe it will result in better environmental protection as 

well as better public participation. 

Another aspect is that it has to be science based. These forest 

plans need to be based on the best science that is available, on the 

best knowledge that we have about how ecosystems interact. It 

calls for science reviews and consistency reviews of the work that 

we do in the development of the forest plan. 

So it is a significant change from where it had been in the past. 

There will be discomfort, I think, in some areas until people actually see how we are implementing them. I believe that people will 

like what they see after we have had a few years of implementation. 

Senator SALAZAR. What is the status of the rule at this point? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. At this point, the rule has been finalized and we 

are in the process of training people so that they can implement 

plan revisions under the new rule. 

When we came out with a final rule, we also came out with another proposal that is out for public comment. That proposal would 

be to categorically exclude forest plans from environmental impact 

statements. 

In other words, we would still do environmental analysis, but we 

would not develop a whole array of alternatives. We would work 

with the public to develop a forest plan, and when we make a decision to do a project and actually do a project on the ground, that 

is when we would actually do the environmental impact statement. 

Part of it is there is a big redundancy there. In our forest plans, 

we do not make a decision to do anything. We set standards and 

guidelines and goals. The decision to do something on the ground 

is made on a project-by-project basis. 

So that is the time when we need to do the environmental impact 

statement. And we believe we should be able to do a categorical exclusion for the plan itself which would significantly reduce the 

amount of time and the cost on the up-front side of doing a forest 

plan. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Chief Bosworth. 

I would appreciate being informed in Colorado as you move forward with the implementation of the rule and specifically giving 

me and my office a heads up, if you will, as you move forward with 

any revisions on our national forests. 

I think for most of us who sit on this committee, national forests 

are so important for us because they comprise so much of the land 

mass of our state and they provide all the benefits that are provided to our respective States. 

But being kept abreast of what is going on as you move forward 

with forest planning within our eleven forests in Colorado is something that I very much would appreciate. 

45

Mr. BOSWORTH. We would be happy to do that. 

I should also point out that some cases, we have forests that are 

halfway or three-fourths of the way through developing forest plans 

using the old rule. Those forests will continue. Some of those will 

complete their plan revision using the old rule just simply because 

there are almost none. 

That may be the case in some of Colorado’s forests. We will be 

happy to keep you informed on which ones will be done using the 

new rule and the ones that are going to be completed under the 

old rule. 

Senator SALAZAR. Under Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I 

very much appreciate you coming here in front of the committee 

today and providing us the information. 

I ask unanimous consent to place the statements in the record 

including the full statements of Chief Bosworth and Under Secretary Rey and, two, to submit the questions for the record on behalf of our members and, three, that we will recess until 10 a.m. 

tomorrow for a hearing on the Department of Energy Budget with 

Secretary Rodman. Thank you and the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Let me begin with the proposal to sell excess properties and to retain the revenues. As in past years, I assume these are small lots or buildings that the agency 

no longer has any need for. Is that correct? 

Question 1. Approximately how many of these properties are there and how much 

revenue are they likely to generate? 

Answer. Generally, properties slated for sale will be offices, work centers, or residences distributed throughout the country that are underutilized or no longer needed to support the Agency mission. Sale of these facilities can result in meaningful 

reduction in deferred maintenance backlog and provide funds for maintenance and 

reconstruction. The Forest Service anticipates there is at least $50 million of facilities to be sold. The agency has not completed a thorough inventory of all the properties that may lend themselves to competitive sale so a total dollar value of facilities to be conveyed is not yet available. As facilities are sold, the number remaining 

to be sold will decrease over time to the point where Forest Service facilities are 

properly aligned with mission and organizational requirements. 

I note that you have proposed significant reductions in the Capital Improvements 

line items as well as Facilities Construction and Maintenance, Road Construction 

and Maintenance, and Trails Construction and Maintenance. If I follow your proposal you will sell some excess property and use part of the revenues to help pay 

for facilities construction and maintenance and some to acquire new facilities, and/

or new lands. 

Question 2. Approximately how much of the revenue will be used to pay for Facilities Construction and Maintenance, and how much for acquisition of additional 

property? 

Answer. Generally funds generated by the sale of administrative sites will be used 

to realign the support infrastructure of the agency to its mission and organizational 

structure through facility disposal, construction, and maintenance. Most of the revenues will be used for facility rehabilitation or replacement, with emphasis toward 

optimizing efficiency and decreasing deferred maintenance backlog. Accomplishing 

those objectives will require a mixture of facility construction and maintenance. We 

do not have precise information on the proportion between construction and maintenance needed at this time. 

As we will generally be reducing total square footage of facility space, we do not 

anticipate the need for much new property acquisition; however, there will be some. 

One example is in District office consolidations, where several sites may be disposed 

of to build a new office in the optimum location. 

Question 3. I am confused. If these properties are excess to the agency’s needs, 

why do you need to replace them or to acquire new lands? 

Answer. The Forest Service does not have many excess facilities, as most are currently occupied. However, we do have a need to realign facility space to a more optimum size and location and to decrease our deferred maintenance. There are many 

situations where employees should be relocated to another site to improve public 

service and improve space utilization and cost efficiency. For example, it may be optimum to consolidate two or more offices into one new efficient office near a centralized population while concurrently selling facilities at scattered sites. Such facility 

realignment is focused on improved service, efficiency, and reduced costs. Acquisition of new administrative properties, if needed, will be incidental to realignment. 

Question 4. How would the Department feel if we adopted this proposal, but directed that 90% of the revenues be used to improve the forest health conditions of 

our National Forests? 

48

Answer. As previously stated, we do not have excess facilities for disposal as a 

revenue source. Due to our changing agency mission and workforce, there is a critical need to realign our facilities to provide better public service and reduce maintenance liabilities. This conveyance program reduces the need for appropriated funds 

to meet that purpose. If the receipts are redirected to healthy forest activities, deficiencies in location, space utilization, and deferred maintenance backlog of fire, administrative and other facilities would be compounded. 

LAND ACQUISITION

In the mandatory appropriations section of the bill I note an increase of $36 million in the Land Acquisition and Enhancements section. 

Question 5. Am I correct that the total requested budget for Land Acquisition when you add the discretionary and mandatory line items together is $76 million? 

Why do we need that much new federal land? Answer. The FY 2006 President’s budget only requests $40 million for Land Ac- quisition. Within this amount, $26.5 million is for acquiring land. Another $500,000 

is for cash to equalize land exchange values, and $13 million is for acquisition management costs. The $26.5 million requested in the President’s Budget for new land acquisition 

projects is being proposed to help reduce current management costs through reduction of boundary survey and marking, as well as by providing greater access to current forest lands for fire suppression purposes. These projects will also provide 

greater public recreation opportunities and protect vital watersheds. Under the Land Acquisition and Enhancement Fund, the $36 million increase reflected in new budget authority represents estimated revenues that will be collected 

from the sales of administrative sites, including their associated land. Funds collected from these sales are only available for maintenance, rehabilitation and construction of facilities, and are not available for new land acquisition projects. 

ROAD AND TRAIL CONSTRUCTION

I also note in the Capital Improvements section you have significant reductions 

in Road and Trail Construction. 

Question 6. Do I understand your proposal correctly, that revenues from the sale 

of some of the excess properties will not be used to fund these important maintenance programs? 

Answer. The legislative proposal will provide funding for needed maintenance and 

construction of fire facilities, administrative facilities, research facilities, visitor centers and dams. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

You’ve requested the 10-year average for funding fire suppression and this last 

year the Forest Service managed to expend more than the ten year average for fire 

suppression. It was only the supplemental appropriations funding they received that 

kept you from having to rob Peter to pay Paul. 

Question 7. What steps have you undertaken to control your fire costs? What steps 

have you taken to ensure the suppression production increases? 

Answer. In 2002, the Forest Service contracted with the National Academy of 

Public Administration to perform an independent cost containment review, which 

resulted in a report in September 2002. Additionally, during 2003 and 2004 the Forest Service completed more than 15 interagency regional reviews of fires that exceed 

$5 million dollars and performed national reviews. 

These reviews have resulted in more than 100 recommendations. Additionally, the 

agency is assessing numerous recommendations that have resulted out of interagency fire reviews conducted during the last couple of years. Most of these recommendations have the potential for cost savings when fully implemented. However, some will likely yield more substantial savings and merit greater attention. 

In order to focus efforts on those recommendations with the greater potential for 

return, we are conducting a cost benefit analysis using economic and financial experts. The results of this effort will be an implementation strategy that will enable 

focused efforts on recommendations with greater cost savings. 

For FY 2005, the agency determined that an in-depth, objective look at large fire 

costs was warranted. The agency requested OIG modify their audit schedule to enable them to conduct their planned Large Fire Cost Review to coincide with this 

year’s fire season and the OIG concurred. The OIG will begin this review in FY 2005 

including on-site visits during large incident activity. 

In compliance with a provision of the FY 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287), the Secretary of Agriculture established an independent 

49

cost-containment review panel to examine and report on fire suppression costs for 

individual wildfire incidents that exceed $10,000,000. The review panel includes representatives from the academic and fire community as well as agency administrative 

subject matter experts. The review panel is currently finalizing the report that will 

be available soon. 

An additional measure that the Agency plans on implementing in the future that 

may result in potential savings is the method of supply analysis. The Agency is currently looking at methods of supply analysis from various perspectives. There are 

several groups working on methods of supply analysis in relationship to suppression 

procurement activities. The first group is a strategic group initiated by the cache 

managers to look at opportunities for centralized procurement, inventory, and delivery methods. A second group is from the acquisition management side looking for 

efficiencies through standardization. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is 

conducting an audit of the agency’s procurement practices which may also help direct additional supply analysis. 

The agency is committed long term to controlling fire costs and has initiated the 

following actions: identifying the most cost effective alternative relative for fires escaping initial attack; developing stratifications of fire cost relative to size and other 

factors to identify incidents with costs outside the normal range; developing interagency cost performance measures for FY 2006; developing a long term strategic 

aviation strategy and plan; developing a large fire decision support system to provide enhanced decision support for fires escaping initial attack; and developing a 

comprehensive fire planning and budget system, Fire Program Analysis (FPA). 

VALLES CALDERA

I see that you have nearly zeroed out the funding for Valles Caldera again this 

year. I thought I had your assurance, in last year’s hearing, that the Administration 

would more fully support this funding. 

Question 8. Why the increase in Forest Legacy funding, while the decrease in 

funding for Valles Caldera? 

Answer. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is an important voluntary private forest land conservation program. The FLP protects working forests, which provide important public benefits such as clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, forest products, and recreation opportunities. Over the last several years, the FLP has revised 

its program management operations and project selection process to be nationally 

competitive based on standard national criteria. The program received a ‘‘moderately effective’’ rating through OMB’s Performance Assessment Rating Tool evaluation because it has clarified a set of national goals and objectives, as well as implemented a set of accountability measures addressing outcomes, efficiency, and demand that can be tied to budget request. For these reasons, the Administration’s 

budget request supports FLP funding to protect important private forest lands 

through a non-regulatory, incentive based approach. 

The request of $992,000 for the Valles Caldera is the same as was requested by 

the Administration in 2005 while the 2006 request for FLP funds was decreased by 

$20 million. Given that the 2006 request for all non-emergency discretionary funding is $173 million less than the 2005 request and in light of other priorities, the 

2006 Valles Caldera request was held constant at the $992,000 level. 

FUNDING OF EMPLOYEES DURING EMERGENCIES

I asked the Chief about the number of forests that have an over-reliance on emergencies to ensure their employees are funded for the year. 

Question 9. Can I get your commitment that you will take a very hard look at 

this situation? I understand that some forests would have to lay-off significant numbers of employees, if we ever had an emergency free year. Is that true? 

Answer. As implied in the question, any individual Forest Service unit experiences fluctuations in annual funding due to a variety of reasons, among them emergency funding for events such as hurricane relief, ice storm damage, and flooding, 

rain or snow events to name a few. Forest Service employees have also responded 

to non-Forest Service emergencies such as support to Columbia Shuttle recovery, 

Exotic Newcastle Disease, and recovery efforts following the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. However, all Forest Service units have sufficient 

funding to pay for the permanent employees they currently have. It must be noted 

that many units rely on a proportionately large number of temporary employees to 

complete seasonal work. It is absolutely the nature of having a seasonal workforce 

that the positions are filled contingent upon having sufficient funding. Moreover, in 

the desire to stretch every dollar and maximize the amount of work that gets done 

on the ground in a given year, many units will plan for some employees to spend 

50

some portion of their time being away from their regular job on a temporary or 

emergency assignment. Since this actually happens somewhat frequently, it is actually useful to plan for this absence when developing work plans for contracting or 

temporary hires. In the event that funds or assignments on other units are not 

available, employees stay home and contracts or temporary hires are reduced. 

PROGRAM FUNDING: RECREATION AND ROADS

One of the strategic focuses in this budget is to provide recreation opportunities. 

I see funding reductions in the Recreation line item, funding for road maintenance, 

and regulatory initiatives on ORV transportation as signs that the agency may not 

be all that interested in providing for the number one recreational use of our National Forests, driving for pleasure. 

Question 10. How does this budget request result in any growth in road access 

and roaded recreational opportunities? 

Answer. The amount of roads passable to standard passenger cars has decreased 

10,000 miles over the last decade. The agency’s primary focus is on road user safety 

and protection of soil and water resources. 

Question 11. If we have several years in a row of these funding levels for road 

maintenance, aren’t we doomed to more road closures, a concentration of motorized 

recreationists, and more impacts from that recreation? 

Answer. Road maintenance and reconstruction work will be focused primarily on 

critical health and safety needs and watershed protection measures. Actual road 

maintenance and reconstruction will decrease from FY 2004 actual (90,786 miles) 

and estimated FY 2005 levels (63,173 miles) to 42,932 miles in FY 2006. 

I know this is a hearing on the budget, but could you speak some on trends in 

receipts? I see by and large you are projecting that they will continue to fall—that 

is all except the receipts from the recreation fee program. 

Question 12. Given the risk of the forest counties schools legislation not getting 

re-authorized, what should the counties that will depend on Forest Service receipts 

be preparing for? 

Answer. The Administration could support reauthorization of P.L. 106-393 with 

agreed upon savings that fully offset the payments that the bill would authorize and 

if the bill is amended to incorporate other changes. The Administration will be 

happy to work with the committee to identify offsets. The Administration is working 

with the committees on improvements to S. 247 and the companion House bill. 

If P.L. 106-393 is not reauthorized, then counties will return to the 25 percent 

fund payments authorized under the 1908 Act beginning in FY 2007. Any unexpended Title II funds authorized by P.L. 106-393 must be obligated by that time 

or returned to the treasury. Title III funds will be available until expended by the 

county. 

FY 2004 payments from the national forest were $79.7 million, while the current 

funding level under the full payment amount is $393.8 million. 

FUNDING FOR FOREST SERVICE STRATEGIC GOALS

In reading your budget request indicates that you will focus on five strategic goals 

including reducing the risk from catastrophic wildfire, reducing impacts from 

invasive species, providing outdoor recreation, helping to meet energy resource 

needs, and improving watershed conditions. But when I examined the budget request and the proposed outputs I only saw two areas that received significant budget increases, the Forest Legacy program, and Hazardous Fuels Reduction. 

Question 13. Can you point to any evidence in the budget request to suggest that 

Forest Legacy has anything to do with any of the strategic goals? 

Answer. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) protects working forests, which provide important public benefits such as clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, forest 

products, and recreation opportunities. The FLP supports the Forest Service’s strategic goals of providing outdoor recreation and improving watershed condition. Thirty-one out of the 40 states and territories participating in FLP identified protecting 

watershed function and water supply as a program priority and 20 states and territories identified recreation as a program priority. 

In addition, goal six of the Forest Service’s Strategic Plan includes the objective 

of maintaining the environmental, social, and economic benefits of forest and grasslands by reducing their conversion to other uses. The FLP is an important voluntary 

private forest land conservation program that helps the Forest Service accomplish 

this objective. 

The four major challenges to the Nation’s forests and grasslands identified by the 

Forest Service are: (1) fire and fuels, (2) invasive species, (3) unmanaged recreation, 

51

and (4) loss of open space. The FLP helps States address the environmental and economic consequences of loss of open space and working forests. 

STATE AND LOCAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

I see the proposed increase in Hazardous Fuel Reduction, but I also see significant 

cuts proposed in State and Local Fire Assistance. 

Question 14. Will the proposed cuts to State and Local Fire Assistance decrease 

the ability of those rural fire fighters to be first responders on National Forest fire 

emergencies? 

Answer. No, although the proposed funding in State Fire Assistance did decrease, 

the proposed funding for Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) remains the same as FY 

2005. VFA funding is aimed specifically at building and maintaining fire fighting 

capacity in fire departments serving communities of less than 10,000 people. Rural 

and volunteer fire departments provide a first line of defense in coping with fires 

and other emergencies in rural areas and communities. These departments provide 

nearly 80 percent of initial attack on wildfires in the United States. We anticipate 

that maintaining current funding levels in Volunteer Fire Assistance will maintain 

rural fire fighters capability to respond to National Forest fire emergencies as they 

have in the past. 

Question 15. I also note that the number of communities to be assisted through 

the State and Private Fire Assistance program is to be cut in half. How will that 

impact the overall team effort to fight fires? 

Answer. We anticipate that a shift in some funding requirements from federal 

level (State Fire Assistance) to the state and local level to assist local communities 

should not significantly affect the overall team effort. Volunteer Fire Assistance in 

the President’s budget remains at the FY 2005 level. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

Last year’s fire season, while a 7 million acre year, did not impact on the lower 

48 States all that much. Yet, I am told you expended more than 100% of your suppression funding. 

Question 16. What specific steps have you taken, and will you take, to contain 

your fire suppression costs in FY 2006? 

Answer. In 2002, the Forest Service contracted with the National Academy of 

Public Administration to perform an independent cost containment review, which 

resulted in a report in September 2002. Additionally, during 2003 and 2004 the Forest Service completed more than 15 interagency regional reviews of fires that exceed 

$5 million dollars and performed national reviews. 

These reviews have resulted in more than 100 recommendations. Additionally, the 

agency is assessing numerous recommendations that have resulted out of interagency fire reviews conducted during the last couple of years. Most of these recommendations have the potential for cost savings when fully implemented. However, some will likely yield more substantial savings and merit greater attention. 

In order to focus efforts on those recommendations with the greater potential for 

return, we are conducting a cost benefit analysis using economic and financial experts. The results of this effort will be an implementation strategy that will enable 

focused efforts on recommendations with greater cost savings. 

For FY 2005, the agency determined that an in-depth, objective look at large fire 

costs was warranted. The agency requested OIG modify their audit schedule to enable them to conduct their planned Large Fire Cost Review to coincide with this 

year’s fire season and the OIG concurred. The OIG will begin this review in FY 2005 

including on-site visits during large incident activity. 

In compliance with a provision of the FY 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287), the Secretary of Agriculture established an independent 

cost-containment review panel to examine and report on fire suppression costs for 

individual wildfire incidents that exceed $10,000,000. The review panel includes representatives from the academic and fire community as well as agency administrative 

subject matter experts. The review panel is currently finalizing the report that will 

be available soon. 

An additional measure that the Agency plans on implementing in the future that 

may result in potential savings is the method of supply analysis. The Agency is currently looking at methods of supply analysis from various perspectives. There are 

several groups working on methods of supply analysis in relationship to suppression 

procurement activities. The first group is a strategic group initiated by the cache 

managers to look at opportunities for centralized procurement, inventory, and delivery methods. A second group is from the acquisition management side looking for 

efficiencies through standardization. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is 

52

conducting an audit of the agency’s procurement practices which may also help direct additional supply analysis. 

The agency is committed long term to controlling fire costs and has initiated the 

following actions: identifying the most cost effective alternative relative for fires escaping initial attack; developing stratifications of fire cost relative to size and other 

factors to identify incidents with costs outside the normal range; developing interagency cost performance measures for FY 2006; developing a long term strategic 

aviation strategy and plan; developing a large fire decision support system to provide enhanced decision support for fires escaping initial attack; and developing a 

comprehensive fire planning and budget system, Fire Program Analysis (FPA). 

FOREST PLANNING

Last year you and I discussed the forest plan situation in New Mexico. I complained about our plans not being scheduled for revision until 2011 and 2012. I note 

that your new forest planning rule suggests those plans will not be completed by 

2009, a two year improvement over last year’s schedule. 

But I still have a concern. There are 23 other national forests that were due for 

revision in 2001, like our New Mexico forests, that are scheduled to be completed 

before our revisions. There are another 25 that were due for revision in 2002 or 

later that will be completed before our forests in New Mexico. 

Question 17. What does Region Three have against forest planning, and why must 

New Mexican’s be the last forests in the planning queue? 

Answer. The Southwestern Region made major amendments to all of their Forest 

Plans in 1996 to address Mexican Spotted Owl and northern goshawk. Due to that 

large-scale amendment effort the Region did not place emphasis on Plan Revision 

work until the last two years. Initial work has begun to prepare the assessments 

necessary for Forest Plan revisions. To achieve economies of scale it was necessary 

to group Forest Plan revisions into logical units for the assessment work. The Coronado National Forest has many issues with border land management that requires 

changes in Forest Plan management direction. We have therefore placed the emphasis on Arizona assessments and revisions. The Coronado National Forest is starting 

this year and next year the Region plans to begin revisions on the ApacheSitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. Assessment 

work is beginning this year in New Mexico and in FY 2007 we are scheduled to 

start revisions on the New Mexico Forests. The National Grasslands administered 

by the Cibola National Forest are starting revision this year due to the unique and 

isolated situation. The agency plans on all forests completing their revision within 

2-3 years of initiating under the 2004 planning Rule. 

RANGE MANAGEMENT AND GRAZING

Question 18. Given the exceptionally wet year we have been having in New Mexico, can we expect to see cattle and live stock stocking numbers increased this summer and how will your proposed budget decreases affect those efforts? 

Answer. At this time the Region and the Forests are assessing the situation. At 

this time they anticipate the amount of use may increase from the past two years, 

however, some areas may see less and others may see more based on the amount 

of forage growth. As the year goes by, further assessments will take place to help 

determine the full extent of the increase. The budget amount will not determine the 

amount of grazing that takes place. 

EMPLOYEE FUNDING

We have seen a significant number of emergencies that have helped fund a large 

number of employees over the last three years. Beyond fires, your agency has sent 

people to deal with everything from hurricanes, floods, the space shuttle disaster, 

to New York to deal with 911, and even to help kill chickens in bird flu situations. 

I also note that you’re projecting to reduce the funding of Full Time Equivalents 

employees from 37,650 down to 36,000. 

Question 19. Are your planned reductions in personnel in line with your planned 

budget reduction? 

Answer. Planned staffing levels are in line with the planned budget. We anticipate significant savings in indirect costs through the streamlining of business operations, including through the establishment of the Albuquerque Service Center, and 

these savings will help maintain capability for on the ground work. 

Question 20. Can you provide me a list of forests that will have sufficient funding 

to pay for the employees they currently have, in the absence of some emergency 

helping to fund the positions? And can you include an estimate of what percent of 

each forest’s employees depend on emergencies to maintain their full annual salary? 

53

Answer. All forests have sufficient funding for their permanent full time work 

force. Forest Service regions rely upon temporary, seasonal help when needed during the fire season. 

SANTA FE WATERSHED

Congress has funded for the past three years a program through the Forest Service to thin the watershed which provides 40 percent of the water for the City of 

Santa Fe. The appropriations have totaled something on the order of about $5.5 million over four years. I have been impressed with the progress in reducing the potential fire danger in the Santa Fe Watershed. 

Question 21. Could you please tell me how many acres have been treated in the 

Santa Fe Watershed to this point? 

Answer. To date, 3,638 acres (57%) have been treated. 

Question 22. What is the cost per acre on average, and what are the major components of the cost to thin this watershed area? 

Answer. Of the 2,500 acres treated in the Santa Fe Watershed projects, the costs 

to complete the project to date averaged $469 per acre. Thinning of 1,000 acres cost 

$945 per acre or $945,000, prescribed burning of 1,500 acres cost $75 per acre or 

a total of $75,000, monitoring of the watershed by the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station has cost $123,828 and monitoring by the Southwestern Region has cost 

$27,500 to date. Total project cost has bee $1,171,328 over the 2,500 acres. Pile 

burning is accomplished with Forest Service personnel at an additional cost of approximately $50 an acre. 

Question 23. How many acres are remaining to be treated to complete the 

thinning project? 

Answer. 1,763 acres (28%) will be thinned in FY 2005, with the remaining 1,000 

acres (15%) planned for FY 2006. All of the thinning projects require pile burning 

the following year. Final completion of the hazardous fuel reduction project is estimated to occur in FY 2007, depending upon weather and burning conditions. 

Question 24. What is the estimated cost to complete the Santa Fe watershed 

thinning project? 

Answer. Completion of the thinning project will cost about $1.2 million (FY 

2006—$1.1 million; FY 2007—$0.1 million). This estimate includes thinning, prescribed fire, and monitoring costs associated with the project. 

Question 25. What is the estimated cost to maintain this watershed once the 

thinning project is completed? 

Answer. To maintain the watershed in the desired condition, it would be necessary to thin a 6,400 acre area once every nine years at a cost of approximately 

$800,000. In addition to thinning, annual prescribed fires over 700 acre plots would 

cost an estimated $91,000 per year. 

Question 26. Has the Forest Service identified any other major watersheds at risk 

from catastrophic fire? Could you please provide that information to the Committee? 

Answer. The Forest Service is engaged in collaborative efforts to prioritize communities and watersheds at risk in New Mexico and other states. Further project 

development is taking place through the Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(CWPP) process in many New Mexico communities and counties. The Forest Service 

is an active participant in CWPP development, with final responsibility resting with 

the community. Several watersheds have been identified through collaborative efforts, including the Gallinas, Cloudcroft, Ruidoso, and Alamogordo and Catron and 

Grant Counties. The Forest Service is working with these communities to develop 

restoration plans. Each of these communities is important to the Forest Service. The 

flexibility to prioritize projects on an annual basis is a critical component to the continuation of a positive and effective relationship with communities. 

Question 27. Is the Forest Service working on plans to address these major areas? 

What would be the process used to move forward with these priority projects? 

Answer. Yes. As stated in the previous answer, the Forest Service is engaged in 

collaborative efforts to prioritize communities and watersheds at risk in New Mexico 

and other states. Further project development is taking place through the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) process in many New Mexico communities 

and counties. The Forest Service is an active participant in CWPP development, 

with final responsibility resting with the community. 

Question 28. What have been the lessons learned from this project? 

Answer. The agency learned several valuable lessons from the Santa Fe Watershed restoration project including:

• An informed and educated public will create support that will allow for approximately twenty percent more prescribed burning accomplishments annually. 

54

• Benefits of whole tree mastication exceed hand piling of thinned material, 

which requires at least two more treatments. Additional treatments required for 

thinning, hand piling, and burning add more time and costs to the project. • Thinning prescriptions to reduce fire behavior need to be based on slope instead 

of a broad prescription for environmental constraints. More trees need to be removed on steep slopes to reduce fire behavior to acceptable levels of control and 

fire protection. The need to reduce more trees is due to the way fire preheats 

fuels on steep slopes versus flat ground. • Necessary skills for management of the project include global positioning system, geographic information system skills, forestry expertise, and a dedicated 

person to manage project. These skills will avoid unnecessary complications 

with contractors on acres being treated. • As the benefits of mastication are seen, there will be an increase in competition 

both for the services rendered by the contractor and for the contractor to provide the services at a lower cost. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

LAW ENFORCEMENT—ILLEGAL DRUGS

Question 1. One of the problems in the forests of my home state is the difficult 

task of combating illegal drugs. The Daniel Boone National Forest. Because of its 

size and isolated location, the Appalachians of eastern Kentucky has become a 

haven for marijuana growers and methamphetamine laboratories. In the past, the 

Daniel Boone National Forest has effectively used the Kentucky National Guard to 

fight this illegal activity. With more and more of the guard fighting terrorism, I am 

concerned that the Daniel Boone will have difficulty maintaining a strong drug 

interdiction program. Is this a widespread problem for National Forests? What do 

you plan to do to address this critical issue? Is this a widespread problem for National Forests? 

Answer. The Southern Region has seen a reduction in National Guard support to 

assist National Forest law enforcement officers/agents with the cutting and removing of marijuana plants. 

Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations staff makes every effort to 

maintain the highest level of law enforcement presence in the field as possible. Officers on detail from other areas within the region are used whenever possible. 

The Forest Service is partnering with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 

the National Marijuana Initiative and other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. Sharing manpower resources, intelligence and working in task force 

groups eradicating and investigating marijuana and methamphetamine usage benefits the National Forest. 

The Forest Service is a permanent and committed member to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). The Appalachia HIDTA provides Forest Service officers/agents with limited financial resources to detect, destroy and investigate illegal marijuana and methamphetamine 

usage on the Daniel Boone and Cherokee National Forests. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

Question 2. The proposed budget for the forest Service includes significant decreases in funding for fighting forest fires. While I realize that there were extraordinary events last year that prompted emergency funding, in any given year there 

will be a certain level of natural forest fire activity. Does your budget realistically 

reflect the costs of fighting fires in an average year or do you expect to return to 

congress for emergency funding after the first large scale fire? 

Answer. The budget reflects the 10-year average annual cost of wildland fire suppression. Unobligated balances from previously appropriated funds will be available 

if not obligated in FY 2005. In addition, agency efforts to reduce suppression costs 

will lessen the need for additional funds absent extraordinary circumstances. If a 

severe fire season occurs in FY 2006, resulting in suppression costs that exceed the 

amount available, funds will be transferred from other Forest Service programs. 

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM—KNOBS STATE FOREST

Question 3. Kentucky recently established a forest legacy program and identified 

the Knobs State Forest as its first priority for the program. Would you explain how 

the forest legacy program will work in Kentucky and at the Knobs State Forest? 

Answer. In 2003, Kentucky entered the Forest Legacy Program with the approval 

of the State’s Assessment of Need (AON) by the Secretary of Agriculture. The AON 

is an implementation plan that evaluates forest characteristics, uses, and threats; 

55

describes specific forest areas where the FLP will be focused; and outlines program 

goals and eligibility criteria. After coordination with the State Forest Stewardship 

Coordinating Committee and conducting public involvement, the Kentucky Division 

of Forestry identified the state’s program goals to protect environmentally important 

forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses and to promote 

working forests and other conservation opportunities. In addition, four Forest Legacy Areas were defined to focus the FLP into areas with high important forest resources and known threat of conversion. 

FLP projects are evaluated through a nationally competitive selection process 

based on standard criteria. Projects with the highest scores are included in the 

President’s budget request. The Knobs State Forest project is included in the President’s FY 2006 budget request, and also received funding in FY 2004 and FY 2005. 

This project is located in the Salt River watershed, which is experiencing significant 

conversion of working forests to other uses. Once formed, this new state forest will 

protect an important working forest and provide much needed recreational opportunities, educational opportunities, habitat protection, and other benefits in a heavily 

populated area. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

US AID—REFORESTATION OF HAITI

Question 1. Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I would like to bring to your attention language in the omnibus conference report directing US AID, in consultation 

with the Department of Agriculture and others, to develop a comprehensive strategy 

on reforestation in Haiti. 

In May of 2004, nearly 3000 Haitians were killed in flooding caused only by moderate rains. In September, then Tropical Storm Jeanne killed nearly 5,000 more 

Haitians. Storms in 2003 and 1998 also claimed many Haitian lives due to flooding. 

There is widespread agreement that these tragedies are directly linked to deforestation. 

I specifically sought to have the language requiring US AID to consult with the 

Department of Agriculture included in the Omnibus report because I think we need 

some fresh thinking on Haiti reforestation, and I think that this is something in 

which the Forest Service should play a constructive role. 

Will you commit to devoting some resources and expertise to that important effort? 

Answer. We understand that USAID is in the process of developing the requested 

strategy for Haitian watershed restoration and that they will invite the Forest Service and other agencies to contribute its’ development before it is finalized. We agree 

that new ideas are needed and we are committed to working with both USAID and 

Congress to develop innovative approaches to address this important issue. 

TIMBER SALE ACCOUNTING

Question 2. A few weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office issued its ‘‘Budget 

Options’’ report for Congress to consider. That report says that the Forest Service 

does not maintain the necessary data to estimate the annual receipts and expenditures associated with individual [timber] sales. Thus, it is hard to estimate precisely 

the budgetary savings... (Chapter 2, page 97). The General Accountability Office 

had arrived at the same conclusion in earlier reports. Does the Forest Service agree 

with the statement quoted above from the CBO report, and has it corrected the accounting problems relating to timber sales that have been identified by the GAO? 

Please explain. 

Answer. The Forest Service does not agree that we have accounting problems relating to timber sales. While receipt information is maintained by individual timber 

sale in the Timber Sale Accounting subsidiary system, expenditure information is 

maintained at the programmatic level by National Forest. Maintaining cost information at the individual timber sale level is not a federal financial requirement nor 

does agency management consider it essential to program or budgetary decisionmaking. Further, the cost of maintaining expenditure information at the sale level 

of detail would far exceed the benefit from our perspective. We recognize GAO’s 

prior review of the timber sale program but there were no agreements regarding accounting at the individual timber sale level. With respect to the language in the 

Congressional Budget Office report regarding budgetary savings, it is unclear what 

is meant by this statement and we therefore have no response. 

56

FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT

Question 3. The recently enacted Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act includes a number of criteria and limitations that restrict the Forest Service fee collection authority. For which areas, if any, will the Forest Service no longer be collecting fees as a result of the restrictions in that Act. 

Answer. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) prohibits 

charging entrance fees or standard amenity fees for individuals under 16 years of 

age. This prohibition affects the Forest Service at recreation sites around the country that charge on an individual basis, primarily visitor centers. In addition, unlike 

the Agency’s authority under Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) Act and 

Fee Demonstration program, the FLREA also prohibits charging an entrance fee for 

certain congressionally designated areas such as National Recreation Areas or National Scenic Areas. As a result of this prohibition, the Forest Service no longer collects an entrance fee at these areas. Certain portions of these congressionally designated areas may meet the FLREA criteria for charging a standard amenity fee. 

To be in compliance with the FLREA criteria, additions to and removals from the 

Forest Service’s recreation fee program will be initiated this Spring when Forest 

Service specific guidelines are issued to the Forests for implementation. Removals 

will likely include some day-use facilities and boundaries adjusted at some high impact recreation areas. With the repeal of L&WCF fee collection sections, several 

campgrounds will be added to the FLREA program. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER LICENSING

Question 4. Please describe the current process at the Forest Service for developing mandatory conditions for hydroelectric licenses under the Federal Power Act. 

Is the time line for developing these conditions consistent with the time line for relicensing proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? Please describe. 

Answer. The current process for developing mandatory conditions for hydroelectric 

licenses is formally outlined in Forest Service Manual, 2770, Federal Power Act 

Projects as follows:

1. Respond to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) notice of acceptance of a license application with a report pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act of October 24, 1992 (43 U.S.C. 1761(d)) for any project that occupies 

National Forest System (NFS) land. 

2. Provide FERC with a statement of the conclusions as to the project’s consistency or interference with national forest purposes and the project’s consistency with 

the applicable land management plan. Identify the nature and extent of any significant inconsistency or interference. 

3. Coordinate with FERC and other Federal and State agencies, as appropriate, 

in determining the license conditions necessary for the protection and utilization of 

NFS lands and resources. 

4. Transmit to FERC those section 4(e) license conditions the Forest Service considers necessary to mitigate effects on NFS lands and resources that are directly 

attributable to project operations and maintenance. 

The time line for developing Forest Service conditions is consistent within boxes 

‘‘NEPA Track A 20A-24A’’ or ‘‘NEPA Track B 20B-23B’’ the timeline for relicensing 

proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The diagram displays 

both the timeline and integration of the federal agencies development of conditions 

with FERC’s licensing process.

57

Question 5. What efforts has the Forest Service made to coordinate its process for 

developing conditions with the FERC? 

Answer. As part of a number of efforts, and in response to the National Energy 

Plan, the Forest Service conducted a review of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) as applied to the Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 4(e) conditions and 

the policies and practices of other federal agencies that also submit conditions to 

FERC. The Forest Service review determined that the development of FPA Section 

4(e) conditions does not constitute an independent agency action by the Forest Service. The NEPA ‘‘action’’ regarding licensing of hydroelectric projects is FERC’s. 


2133101.eps
58

This change made Forest Service policy consistent with the policy and practice of 

other federal agencies that submit conditions to FERC pursuant to the FPA (e.g., 

USFWS, BIA, BLM, and NOAA) and allowed the FS to file any revisions to its preliminary conditions at the same time as other federal agencies. As for all agency 

conditions, opportunity for public comment on the agency’s 4(e)’s is available in the 

FERC process, and parties to the FERC proceeding still have an appeal opportunity 

in the FERC licensing process. 

This change in policy also allows for early and frequent public involvement in the 

development of FS 4(e)’s. This is in line with the newly proposed FERC integrated 

licensing process and the practice of other federal agencies with mandatory conditioning authority. Through the FERC process, the FS and other agencies provide 

many opportunities for public comment while FERC is scoping issues during environmental reviews of license applications. 

Question 6. Does the Forest Service afford license applicants and others an opportunity for an administrative appeal of a mandatory conditions? If so, please describe 

the appeals process. 

Answer. The Forest Service does not issue a decision document when license conditions are transmitted to FERC. Our conditions are not agency decisions as defined 

in 36 CFR 215. However, the Forest Service is committed to providing ample opportunities for public input as it develops its mandatory conditions. The public can also 

review and comment through FERC’s licensing process. Federal agencies are required to submit preliminary conditions to FERC upon notice from FERC that the 

application is ‘‘ready for environmental review.’’ All of the agencies preliminary conditions are included in FERC’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS). The license applicant, other parties to the FERC proceeding, and the public can comment 

on the FERC NEPA document and file reply comments on the comments of others. 

As has been our practice, the Forest Service will continue to consider and respond 

to comments on its preliminary conditions in determining the need for revised conditions before submitting the mandatory conditions that will be part of FERC’s final 

NEPA document and included in the license. 

Question 7. Does the Forest Service conduct formal adjudicatory appeals as provided for by the Administrative Procedure Act? 

Answer. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements are self-defining 

and the Forest Service’s voluntary and other statutorily required appeal systems do 

not fall within APA’s requirements for, or definitions of, a formal adjudicatory process. The APA establishes procedural requirements for only one class of adjudications: those which are ‘‘required by statute to be determined on the record after an 

opportunity for an agency hearing.’’ This means the APA’s formal adjudication procedures are mandatory only when some other statute directs the agency to conduct 

an evidentiary hearing in adjudicating particular kinds of cases. The Forest Service 

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 215, 217 and 218 appeal systems do 

not qualify as formal adjudications as the system is an informal, discretionary appeal opportunity, refined over the years. As noted in answers above, since the Forest 

Service does not issue a decision document to FERC, our conditions are not an appealable decision. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

RECREATION—FUNDING

Question 1. Mr. Rey, the Northwest Forest Pass, created under the Fee Demo program, currently brings in more than one million dollars each year to trails in Washington state. Local forests, which have seen their recreation budgets decline dramatically over the past decade, have come to depend upon these funds to take care 

of basic maintenance and operations needs. 

How will the new fee regime, created under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, ensure that this important source of trail funding is preserved? 

Answer. The decision on how to spend recreation enhancement fee revenue is 

made at the Forest level, in consultation with the public. Under Fee Demo, generally a portion of each Forest’s Northwest Forest Pass revenue was used to maintain forest trails through the hiring of crews to do trail maintenance and provide 

support to volunteer organizations that perform trail maintenance. Based on criteria 

provided by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), there may 

be removals and additions of day-use facilities, including trailheads, to the Northwest Forest Pass, which may impact the fee revenue available for use by a forest. 

Upon release of Forest Service guidelines for implementation of FLREA, all sites or 

areas that were previously charging recreation fees, including those sites under the 

Northwest Forest Pass, will be evaluated to align with FLREA. Those not meeting 

59

FLREA’s criteria will no longer impose fees. Until these reviews are complete, revenue projections for the Northwest Forest Pass are uncertain. 

Question 2. Or, if the Northwest Forest Pass does not continue in its current form, 

how will the agency cover the cost of maintaining its trail system? 

Answer. Generally, forests have contributed Northwest Forest Pass fee revenue to 

partners who complete trail maintenance projects. Partnerships, donations, grants, 

and volunteer contributions are the threads that hold the trails program together. 

Trail maintenance priorities are established by the forest based upon available funding, including appropriated and recreation fee sources. 

Question 3. Mr. Rey, as you know, funds shifted within the Forest Service at the 

national level magnify exponentially as they filter down through the regions to local 

forests, especially as the agency covers its various overhead and management expenses. 

Given the President’s proposed flat budget for Forest Service recreation funding, 

what do you anticipate to be the actual impact to recreation budgets at the forest 

level? 

Answer. The proposed budget in the recreation program continues at the FY 2005 

enacted level; however, some program delivery will impacted by absorbing the $4.5 

million in pay costs. The agency will focus on efforts that maximize recreation delivery and place emphasis on high priority efforts that deliver services to the public, 

including those where the agency also has partnerships to honor. Priority will go 

to the operation of developed sites and visitor centers, public services such as interpretation, and addressing ecosystem health in areas of sanitation and garbage removal. We will also continue implementation of the OHV efforts, the recreation site 

realignment process, and meet our obligations to our service partners. 

Question 4. Likewise, the President has proposed a 16 percent cut to the agency’s 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance/Trails (CIMT) account. After adjusting for 

agency and overhead costs, for every dollar delivered to a Washington forest in 

2005, how many cents will they see in 2006? 

Answer. The total trail capital improvement and maintenance funds allocated to 

the Pacific Northwest Region (Washington and Oregon) in FY 2005 was $9,688,000, 

with $3,541,000 (36.5%) going to cover cost pools. The allocation will be similar in 

FY 2006. 

Question 5. Mr. Rey, I understand that the individual regional Forest Service requests for LWCF funding to acquire in-fill parcels for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail total $5 million. All of these acquisitions are from willing sellers and will 

allow trail relocation off the roadway for safety reasons, and to protect the trail from 

intense development pressures. 

Please explain why the President’s budget request does not follow the recommendations of the regional Forest Service offices. 

Answer. The President’s budget reflects national priorities for the acquisition of 

land to be included in the National Forest System and focuses on the agency’s annual and strategic program goals and objectives. Annually, each Region submits a 

list of acquisition projects that represent high resource value and a requested 

amount to fund those acquisitions. These projects are ranked nationally based on 

explicit criteria that typically focus on acquiring lands providing increased recreation opportunity and open space while reducing the threat of development and 

management cost. Proposed projects are then provided with a level of funds consistent with their national ranking and in proportion to the Administration’s funding allocation for overall land acquisition. For FY 2006, the President’s Budget request includes acquisitions for the Pacific Crest Trail project in both Regions 5 and 

6 and was allocated a proportional share of resources within the funding limits provided. 

ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE

Question 6. Mr. Rey, as you know the Forest Service is currently considering comments to its proposed changes to the landmark 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. 

Please provide me with an update on this process and when you think it will be 

completed. 

Answer. The Forest Service is still processing and considering public comments 

at this time with the intent of completing this process in FY 2005. 

Question 7. What is the total number of comments received on this draft rulemaking? 

Answer. The agency estimates it has received 1.8 million comments. 

Question 8. How many of those comments were from Washington state? 

60

Answer. The Forest Service does not compile information on the sources of comments. 

Question 9. Can you provide a preliminary analysis of those comments? 

Answer. No, given the stage of the comment analysis we are in, we are not able 

to provide a preliminary analysis at this time. 

Question 10. Mr. Rey, the proposed changes to the Roadless Rule would provide 

governors with an unprecedented roll in determine the use of federally owned lands. 

Is there any historic or regulatory precedence for state officials deciding how federal lands should be managed? 

Answer. State officials would not decide how to manage the Federal lands. The 

proposed rule would establish administrative procedures to allow a Governor to petition the Secretary to undertake future rulemaking to establish or adjust management requirements for inventoried roadless areas within the State. If the Secretary 

accepts a petition, subsequent State-specific rulemaking would be proposed that 

would include public involvement and the appropriate level of environmental analysis. Governors would not make the rulemaking decisions; they would make recommendations to be considered in future rulemaking, and a commitment that the 

State would participate as a cooperating agency in any environmental analysis for 

that State-specific rulemaking. 

Question 11. Is the Department of Interior concerned about how this dynamic 

could alter the use of other federally owned public lands? 

Answer. The Forest Service is not aware of any concerns by the Department of 

Interior about the proposed rule. 

Question 12. Do you envision providing state agencies with federal resources to 

take on these tasks? 

Answer. No. The Forest Service would provide the State with available information. The responsibility for collaborating with interested parties and assembling the 

petition for submittal to the Secretary would be a State responsibility. 

Question 13. Mr. Rey, I understand that under the draft rule the Forest Service 

still retains all the final decision-making authority. Is it true that the Forest Service 

can still turn down any or all Governors requests for roadless area protections? 

Answer. The petitioning process is strictly voluntary. If a Governor does not submit a petition to the Secretary for consideration, then the management requirements for inventoried roadless areas in that particular State would remain as they 

are in approved land management plans. Decisions to approve land management 

plans are made by the Forest Service. Under the proposed rule, the decision to accept or decline a petition by a Governor to recommend changes to the management 

requirements through State-specific rulemaking for these areas rests with the Secretary, as does the decision to adopt any subsequent State-specific rulemaking. 

Question 14. What does the Forest Service estimate it will cost to begin a new 

state-by-state rulemaking process? 

Answer. There are 38 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that contain 

National Forest System inventoried roadless areas. Since this petitioning process is 

strictly voluntary, there is no way to know how many petitions might be submitted 

to the Secretary, or how many submitted petitions the Secretary might approve that 

could then trigger subsequent State-specific rulemaking. An individual State-specific 

cost-benefit analysis would subsequently be completed. 

Question 15. How will the proposed rule change affect the existing multibillion 

dollar road maintenance backlog? 

Answer. There should not be any direct affect on the maintenance backlog. The 

roadless rule will not have a direct affect on the mileage of the road system. 

Question 16. Please update me on the state of the road maintenance backlog, including an estimation of its overall cost and an explanation of how these figures 

were derived. 

Answer. Based on refinements to our inventory data, we estimate our road backlog for deferred maintenance and capital improvement costs to be $6.5 billion. If you 

factor in the added organizational costs for design and contract administration plus 

all overhead costs for support, we estimate the total cost to restore our road system 

to be around $9 billion. This estimate is the sum of deferred maintenance needs and 

of capital improvement needs necessary to implement forest plans. The amounts are 

derived from estimates made during condition surveys of the roads. All passenger 

car roads were surveyed and a statistical sample of non-passenger car and stored 

roads was conducted. 

Question 17. How does the President’s FY 2006 budget request propose to deal 

with this vital issue? 

Answer. In the President’s FY 2006 proposed budget, addressing the needs of 

wildland fire management and hazardous fuels reduction is an agency priority. The 

agency will continue to emphasize public safety in order to assure road user safety 

61

on the existing roads open to passenger cars and on roads passable only by high 

clearance vehicles. Priorities that determine the mileage of roads maintained in 

each category will be developed at the local level. Doing this will allow us to meet 

emergency needs, critical annual health and safety maintenance needs, and critical 

deferred health and safety (backlog) needs on the most important roads. When nonpriority roads are closed by natural events, such as floods, landslides, and blow 

down, they will likely remained blocked to traffic. Opening such roads would not be 

a priority unless they become critical for public access or accomplishment of resource projects. 

WILDLAND FIRE PREPAREDNESS

Question 18. Mr. Rey, as you know, the issue of USFS firefighter safety has been 

an issue that I have paid very close attention because of a horrible tragedy. On July 

10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst 

drought in the history of our state, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control. 

Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names:

• Tom Craven, 30 years old; • Karen FitzPatrick, 18; • Jessica Johnson, 19; • and Devin Weaver, 21.

Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not 

have to die. In the words of the Forest Service’s own report on the Thirtymile fire, 

the tragedy ‘‘could have been prevented.’’ At that time, I said that I believe we in 

Congress and management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to 

ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened again. 

Yet, I’m deeply saddened by the fact that it’s clear we haven’t done enough. 

In July 2003—two years after Thirtymile—two more firefighters perished, this 

time at the Cramer Fire within Idaho’s Salmon-Challis National Forest. Jeff Allen 

and Shane Heath were killed when the fire burned over an area where they were 

attempting to construct a landing spot for firefighting helicopters. 

After the Thirtymile Fire, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) conducted an investigation and levied against the Forest Service fire citations for Serious and Willful violations of safety rules. It was eerie, when OSHA 

concluded its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five OSHA citations, for 

Serious, Willful and Repeat violations. Reading through the list of causal and contributing factors for Cramer and putting them next to those associated with the 

Thirtymile fire, I was struck by the many disturbing similarities. Even more haunting are the parallels between these lists and the factors cited in the investigation 

of 1994’s South Canyon Fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado. It’s been ten 

years since those 14 firefighters lost their lives on Storm King Mountain—and yet, 

the same mistakes are being made over and over again. 

These facts have also been documented by an audit and memorandum issued by 

the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General. The IG found that ‘‘while there 

were many factors common to all three fires, the most important was a failure by 

[Forest Service] fire suppression personnel to establish fire safety rules and guidelines and to exercise acceptable supervision and judgment.’’ The audit also stated 

‘‘accidents on the South Canyon, Thirtymile, and Cramer Fires, all of which involved 

fatalities, could have been avoided if certain individuals had followed standard safety practices and procedures in place at the time.’’ Lastly, the IG noted that the Forest Service ‘‘has not timely implemented actions to improve its safety programs.’’

Despite these critical issues, how do you explain reductions in the USFS-preparedness budget? 

Answer. With the Forest Service FY 2006 preparedness budget, the agency is committed to maintaining firefighting readiness comparable to the FY 2005 level without sacrificing firefighter safety. 

Question 19. What specific steps are you taking to ensure that our wildland firefighters and those that manage them during firefighting, are getting the training 

and equipment they need as we head to another challenging fire season in my state 

and throughout the West? 

Answer. The Agency is continuing its commitment to provide wildland firefighters 

with adequate training and equipment to carry out their job. One of the areas in 

which the fire organization has been successful in expanding training is with the 

development of an extensive leadership training program. 

On October 1, 2004, the Agency implemented Interagency Fire Program Management (IFPM). IFPM is an extensive program that focuses on bringing the federal 

wildland fire organizations up to consistent professional standards, and increasing 

training and safety. For example, the program increases the competency of forest 

62

technicians, elevates key fire positions to professionalism, and requires University 

education credentials. 

Question 20. Can you clearly identify how much money will be spent on preparedness within each region of the Forest Service including within my State of Washington? 

Answer.

Based on preliminary information, Preparedness funds would be distributed to the 

Regions as shown in the accompanying chart. The above chart does not reflect preparedness allocations associated with National Headquarters and other national 

costs, centralized business operations, and allocations to research station special 

projects. 

The State of Washington will receive about 21% of the Region 6’s fire prepared- ness budget or about $17.5 million for the Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, 

Olympic, Okanogan-Wenatchee and Colville National Forests. 

THIRTYMILE FIRE REPORT

Question 21. Mr. Rey, the USFS conducted an internal investigation following the 

Thirtymile fire. Unfortunately, much of that information was redacted when the report was released in May 2002. I believed then, and continue to believe, that the 

Forest Service over-reached—claiming ‘‘deliberative process privilege’’ as the reason 

it won’t release any more. Deliberative process privilege is what agencies claim 

when they want to reject FOIA requests. It is clear that it is within the agency’s 

discretion to release a less redacted version of the report itself. 

Can you please explain your reasoning that this material, so important to the 

families of the four victims, has been redacted and is considered deliberative process 

privilege? 

Answer. There are many reports addressing the Thirtymile incident investigation 

that include a safety report, a manager’s report and an administrative investigation 

report. It is somewhat unclear which report your question is referring to, however 

we believe the question refers to the administrative investigation report because the 

other reports were released unredacted. 

The investigation conducted by the Forest Service was undertaken in the context 

of possible disciplinary actions against Forest Service employees. Information within 

the investigation report was withheld pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6 of the Freedom of Information Act. Exemption 5 protects the ability of an agency to investigate 

and be frank in its evaluation and analysis of the information discovered during the 

investigation. The Forest Service believes the release of this type of information 

would compromise the ability to provide candid evaluation and analysis in the future. Additionally, employees investigated are entitled to privacy under Exemption 

6. Because there are possible administrative actions resulting from the outcome of 


2133102.eps
63

the investigation and the agency analysis of the investigation, that the privacy interest is significant. The agency is obligated to protect that personal privacy. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING

I am concerned about the Administration’s continued cuts to land management 

planning. The ongoing staffing shortages within the Forest Service prevent many 

National Forests from completing plan revisions. Staffing continues to decrease. The 

FY 2006 budget proposes a 30% reduction from FY 2005, or a cut of over 100 full 

time employees. 

As you know, in 2000 the Rocky Mountain Region published a notice of intent to 

amend five national forest management plans in Colorado and one in Wyoming to 

establish guidance for conservation of Canada lynx. Unfortunately, this effort 

(Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment) has been delayed and has no specific deadline. 

Yet the multi-agency Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, which 

was published in 2000, demonstrated the need for planning and guidance to protect 

lynx in Colorado’s national Forests. 

Question 1. How will the cuts to land management planning in your Department 

affect staffing in Colorado? And how will those cuts affect completion of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment? 

Answer. It is uncertain how the budget will affect staffing in Colorado. The Rocky 

Mountain Region is not currently planning reductions in their planning staffs. However, the 2004 Planning Rule was developed in part to reduce the upfront costs of 

plan revision and shift more funds to monitoring and plan amendment. Were the 

lynx issue to arise today under the new planning rule the Forest Service would expect quicker incorporation of new science and new direction when needed for wildlife. The Rocky Mountain Region does expect the lynx amendments to be completed 

in FY 2006. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT

The President’s FY 2006 budget would cut the very resources that are most effective at preventing the loss of homes in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) to wildfire. It seems that the only way to guarantee protection of homes in the WUI is to 

treat the immediate vicinity of those structures, and the structures themselves. 

Clearing the interior forest far from communities seems risky, as there is no predicting where the next lightening strike will be and a fire anywhere within two 

miles of a community can launch fire brands that shower an area with flaming debris, igniting anything they contact. 

Yet, the President’s FY 2006 budget continues to cut resources that would facilitate protection of this state and local assistance. 

Question 2. Would you please explain the decision to cut this program further? 

Answer. Efforts to reduce hazardous fuel within and adjacent to communities at 

risk from wildland fire are aimed at improving the chances that suppression will 

be effective. Reducing the flammability of structures and treating private lands directly adjacent to homes is one extremely important step in improving the odds of 

survivability. Another important step is to make problem fire behavior rare or unlikely in the adjacent wildlands, and reducing the opportunity for problem fires to 

spread rapidly across the landscape. Reduction of hazardous fuel through thinning, 

cutting, burning and similar treatments is the best way to change expected fire behavior. These treatment efforts are not wasted in the forest interior, for they often 

meet multiple management objectives, reducing fuel while improving wildlife habitat, improving forest health or watershed values, restoring ecosystems, etc. While 

lightning ignitions are random, human caused starts from a variety of sources are 

somewhat less random, often associated with road access. Wildfire spotting potential 

is a concern, although spotting distance from a protection target like a community 

varies with the kind of trees and fuel in the adjacent forest, the slope and the position of the fire on that slope, and the wind speed and direction on the day of the 

fire. The funds available for the hazardous fuel reduction program are not being cut, 

but have actually shown an increase in past years and into FY 2006. Local variability in funds may be due to shifting priorities geographically. 

ENERGY RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

In the FY 2006 Park (should say Forest) Service budget justification, the USFS 

states that the agency will continue to emphasize leasing and development requests 

for oil, gas and geothermal energy with a ‘‘particular emphasis’’ (Sec. 7 pg. 59) on 

coalbed methane. 

64

Question 3. Will the USFS also emphasize and make available the resources necessary for adequate oversight of the field operations of this energy development? 

Answer. The Forest Service will continue to provide adequate oversight of field 

operations to ensure compliance with permit requirements and strive to protect the 

environment. 

OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLES

Chief Bosworth, in your testimony you mentioned the increase in use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) within National Forests and the negative impact they are causing on resources. You stated that the Forest Service is currently finalizing a rule 

for managing OHVs that will require each National Forest to undertake travel management planning that will specify what trails/roads are for ORV use and which are 

off-limits. 

Question 4. Why, then, is there is no money allocated in the President’s budget 

for implementation of this critical rule? 

Answer. Better management of OHV use is one of the top priorities of the Forest 

Service and it is the agency’s intent to accomplish this job within the funds available. A designated system of roads, trails, and areas will result in reduced environmental impacts, control over route proliferation, and a better and more sustainable 

experience for visitors. 

Within the next few years, the Forest Service intends to complete route designation as quickly as possible. This process will depend on local planning in an open, 

collaborative process coordinated with state, local, and tribal governments, and commitments from both the agency and the public. 

Question 5. If you are using funds from other accounts within the budget, how 

will the Forest Service account for its spending to implement this rule? 

Answer. The Forest Service intends to fund route designation locally according to 

the primary purposes served. This is consistent with past practice in travel management, and with the agency accounting structure. Travel planning includes multiple 

steps and serves multiple purposes involving management of National Forest System roads and trails. Bringing motor vehicles onto a designated system protects 

water quality and wildlife habitat in addition to serving recreation visitors. Forest 

plan inventory and monitoring may also be a component. Work activities associated 

with the Forest Service’s strategic goal on Unmanaged Recreation, which includes 

implementation of the OHV rule, will be tracked in the Forest Service Work Planning system. That system will provide a sophisticated estimate of costs associated 

with attaining the strategic goal. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

In your testimony Chief Bosworth, you stated that the backlog in deferred maintenance for deteriorating facilities continues to be a problem. You said that the budget 

proposes a new incentive-based approach to reduce the maintenance backlog for administrative sites and visitor centers. However, within the Budget Overview for the 

Forest Service (Sec. 9 pg. 1) it states that ‘‘beginning in FY 2006, facility maintenance within the capital improvements program is limited to recreation sites.’’ It 

goes on to say that maintenance of research, fire, administrative, visitor center, and 

all other facilities will be funded from a working capital fund (WCF). 

Question 6. How will you prioritize the maintenance that is necessary and the 

funds that will used for this purpose? 

Answer. Maintenance work that eliminates critical health and safety issues at administrative sites will be the highest priority use of these funds. Remaining funds 

will be used to eliminate maintenance issues that cause impairment of infrastructure function. 

FOREST FEES FOR VISITORS

Chief Bosworth, you stated earlier that last year President Bush signed into law 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which allows the Forest Service to 

charge modest fees at recreation sites which can be used to help maintain and improve the recreational experience of our visitors. You said, however, that the vast 

majority of recreation sites and services will continue to be free for most visitors 

(for activities such as horseback riding, walking, hiking, and general access to national forests and grasslands). 

Question 7. How will you determine what activities may not remain free to visitors? 

Answer. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) provides welldefined criteria that must be met before a federal land management agency can collect a recreation enhancement fee. The FLREA generally provides criteria based on 

65

amenities that include facilities and services for the majority of recreation enhancement fee sites and areas, not based on activities. The special recreation fee permit 

category authorizes the collection of fees for certain activities, such as issuing outfitting and guiding permits and motorized recreation vehicle use. 

The Forest Service in conjunction with the four other federal agencies (Bureau of 

Land Management, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, and Bureau of 

Reclamation) is developing policy and guidelines to implement the FLREA. Upon release of these guidelines this Spring 2005, all sites or areas that were previously 

charging recreation fees under fee demonstration authority will be evaluated for 

alignment with FLREA. Those sites not meeting the FLREA criteria will no longer 

have fees.

Æ