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

93–709 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–454

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET

FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

MARCH 2, 2004

(

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 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

CAROLE MCGUIRE, Deputy Staff Director 

SCOTT MILLER, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 30

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 4

Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ............... 9

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado ............................

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 2

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

Feinstein, Hon. Diane, U.S. Senator from California ........................................... 23

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 18

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Hank Kashdan, Director, Program 

and Budget Analysis, Forest Service .................................................................. 5

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 1

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 28

APPENDIX 

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

(1)

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Welcome to the meeting of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the Forest Service budget. I want to 

welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey and Chief of the Forest Service 

Dale Bosworth and look forward to hearing about the fiscal year 

2005 Forest Service budget. 

I want to thank Senator Bingaman and our committee members 

for attending. I suspect you will see some more. Our Federal forests 

face many problems in the tight budget climate we are in. I am 

sure many of us will differ on how to best expend the limited 

amount of funding that will be available, but that is not an unusual thing. 

I know that each of us will want to ask questions about the program and the initiatives that are important to our States. 

Finally, I want to take time to thank all of those who worked so 

hard to gain the passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

All of us on this committee worked to improve the bill and to gain 

passage of the bill. Under Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I 

know that you and your people worked very hard on this legislation 

as well, and we thank you and expect that you will expend much 

more energy on the implementation of the law. 

I would just ask for you to confine your oral comments to 5 minutes or near that and we will submit your written and oral testimony in full for the hearing record. I would like to ask the committee members to keep it as short as possible, however do it however you would like, sir, and we will rotate back and forth as we 

have more members. The chairman is participating this morning in 

the budget hearing and member meeting, so they are trying to 

move forward to get that on the floor, and therefore he is not here 

this morning. 

So with that, Senator Bingaman. 

2

[The prepared statements of Senators Campbell, Craig, and 

Domenici follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Undersecretary Rey and Chief 

Bosworth for appearing before the committee today and I am looking forward to the 

testimony that they will be providing us shortly. I appreciate your attendance since 

many sections of the Forest Service’s budget deal directly with my home state of 

Colorado. 

Nearly all lands issues are crucial to my home state since Colorado currently has 

almost 14.5 million acres of National Forest Land, out of which 3.1 million acres 

are designated as Wilderness. And, the BLM currently has 8.4 million acres in Colorado out of which 52,000 acres are designated wilderness. 

I am heartened to see that with the passage of the Healthy Forest Initiative, state 

and national foresters now have many of the tools they need to better manage our 

public lands and forests, particularly as it relates to forest health and protecting the 

crucial Wildland Urban Interface areas. 

However, states such as Colorado, whose timber industry has long since declined, 

face a unique challenge in that they lack the infrastructure to meet the management objectives put forth by the Administration. In fact, in a Rocky Mountain News 

article dating last May, shortly after passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 

Eric Sorenson of Delta Timber, which has about 15 employees said, ‘‘The opponents 

say this will help the big timber industry in Colorado,’’ said ‘‘There isn’t one.’’ Currently, we only have 12 small mills in Colorado. 

Conversely, there are many small companies, such as Greenleaf Forestry & Wood 

Products in Westcliffe, Colorado, which have found a niche and are pioneering a 

new, community-based forestry industry. They assist homeowners in forest management, materials processing, and create economic uses for materials salvaged from 

these projects such as roofing materials, siding, and home furnishings while providing much-needed jobs for depressed local economies. I commend these sorts of innovative companies and am confidant that they are part of the solution and represent a significant component of both the future of sustainable forestry and good 

stewardship of our nation’s forests. 

During the time for questions I will raise some concerns regarding timber sales 

and forest plan management objectives. 

These issue areas are traditionally very sensitive to my state, particularly among 

my fellow Coloradans who deal with these concerns daily. I have some other concerns related to issues in Colorado that I will further address at the appropriate 

time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

I appreciate the work and time that has gone into creating the budget that will 

celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. In reviewing the Forest Service’s budget for Fiscal Year 2005, it once again appears to continue to reflect the 

major goals and objectives of the Chief. And I look forward once again to working 

with the Forest Service on our shared goal of continuing to promote, enhance, and 

conserve our public lands. 

Weeds 

In Idaho and much of the West, we have a large and increasing problem with noxious weeds. These weeds invade our public and private lands destroying both valuable habitat for many species and entire ecosystems. Private landowners are required in most states to do whatever they can to prevent and eradicate these damaging plants. However, public lands—especially in Idaho—adjacent to private land, 

are not subject to such a requirement. 

It’s encouraging to see that reducing the impacts from invasive species is the Forest Service’s number two goal in the FY05 budget. In your overview of this goal, 

it is stated that weeds cost the public more than $138 billion PER YEAR. However, 

a closer look at your budget says that the budget for invasive species will be reduced 

by $25.6 million from FY04 levels, although six FTE’s will be added. Could you provide the Committee with your thoughts on this disparate approach? 

3

Forest Legacy 

As you know, the Forest Legacy program continues to grow in popularity and 

need. I appreciate the attention and time the Forest Service is putting into this program. However, I am disappointed that the Idaho project, the St. Joe/Mica Creek 

project, did not receive an increase in funding. In fact, it is budgeted at the same 

number as FY04, $3.5 million, the same number I worked to secure through the Appropriations process. While the recipient of the program in this case is Potlatch Corporation, the need is not any less than a smaller private landowner. I will again 

work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to try to increase this 

amount and would like to see the Forest Service take a closer look at this critical 

project. 

Timber Program 

I am very excited to see an increase in the forest products and timber sale program and I commend the Chief for his work in this area. While a modest increase 

of 4% is proposed for the timber sale program and 19% is proposed for the timber 

salvage program—this is a step in the right direction. The removal of trees from 

our over populated forests significantly reduces the potential for disease and fire. 

Not to mention, the positive impact this has on our resource dependent communities. 

Fire Program 

After all of the hard work last year that went into the passage of the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act, I commend the Forest Service’s efforts to increase the 

wildland fire suppression funding by 15%. Their efforts along with the Department 

of the Interior to fully fund this critical piece of legislation shows how committed 

the agencies are to tackling this issue that is plaguing our Western communities. 

I realize the work that will be completed in this fiscal year is only a drop in the 

bucket, but it is the first step in the right direction that the agencies have taken 

in a long time. 

State and Private 

I am disappointed to see, what I feel is a drastic cut in State and Private forestry 

programs. The technical and financial assistance that is provided to our communities is a critical piece in the overall partnership in protecting our communities 

from wildfire. I look forward to the explanation and reasoning behind this decision. 

Legislative Proposals 

Last, I am very supportive of several legislative proposals by the agency. I would 

like to reiterate that I continue to be committed to finding a workable legislative 

solution for Recreation Fees and will continue to work with the Forest Service. I 

also want to reiterate that I do not support fees for dispersed recreation and will 

not support legislation that charges for it. Next, I am supportive of legislation to 

allow the Forest Service to sell excess property and to retain the receipts to pay for 

improvements or other administrative purposes. As the Chief knows, I have to two 

bills that have passed the Senate and are working their way through the House that 

do just that very thing and I look forward to working with the Forest Service on 

this concept. 

The list goes on and on regarding the number of things I could comment on—for 

now I will leave it at that. I appreciate the Undersecretary and Chief’s time today 

and look forward to the testimony. 

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

FROM NEW MEXICO

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

Bosworth and I look forward to hearing about the FY 2005 Forest Service proposed 

budget. 

I also want to thank Senator Bingaman and our other Committee members for 

attending this hearing. Given the problems facing our federal forests and the tight 

budget climate we are in, I am sure many of us will differ on how best to expend 

the limited amount of funding that will be available. 

I know that each of us will want to ask questions about the programs and initiatives that are important to our State. 

Finally, I want to take this time to thank all of those Senators who worked so 

hard to gain passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. All of us on this Committee worked to improve the bill and to gain passage of the bill. 

4

Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I know that you and your people worked 

very hard to get this legislation, and I expect that you will expend much more energy on implementation of this law. 

Please confine your oral comments to 5 minutes each and we will put both your 

written and oral testimony into the official record for this hearing. 

I would ask that committee members keep there opening comments as short as 

possible, so that we can get to the questions and answer portion of this hearing. 

Senator Bingaman, would you care to make an opening statement? Then I will rotate back and forth based on the order in which Committee members arrived.

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

FROM NEW MEXICO 

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

Let me welcome our witnesses, Under Secretary Rey and Chief 

Bosworth. I did want to mention just as an opening matter a couple of concerns, two significant failings that I see in the proposed 

budget again this year, and just indicate my concern about them. 

The first is the chronic failure to adequately address what the 

Chief referred to last year as, quote, ‘‘the chaos of transfers,’’ end 

quote. Each year we hear testimony about how the administration’s 

request will meet the fire suppression needs and help avoid this 

chaos of transfers each year. That is, transfers from one account to 

another. Each year we end up scrambling for emergency appropriations to cover growing firefighting costs and to repay important accounts that have been raided in the mean time. 

These transfers cause chaos, they cause delay, they cause us to 

dismantle projects in all of our States, projects such as thinning 

and watershed and species protection and energy production. We 

are still short nearly $150 million from what was borrowed last 

year, as I understand it. I am disappointed that the administration 

seems to again have put us on this path to emergency appropriations and more of this transfer chaos with a request that I do not 

think passes the straight-faced test, given that all indications are 

that we will have another bad fire season in the West. That was 

the first concern. 

The second is the administration’s insistence on cutting funds for 

rehabilitating and restoring forests after fires. The administration 

is again proposing to cut the rehabilitation program. This year the 

proposed cut is 57 percent. The proposal last year from the administration was that we should zero out the funding for this program. 

As all of us know, this has been a great concern on a bipartisan 

basis here. Senator Domenici specifically raised it last year as a serious and glaring problem. I spoke up in agreement with that concern. We heard about how rehabilitation and restoration needs are 

met through the fire suppression and other accounts, but the simple fact is that these critical community and ecological needs are 

not being met. 

In the Southwest, of course, and in much of the West, we have 

the daunting restoration work not only that is a result of the recent 

fires, but also as a result of the kill from the bark beetle. I do not 

see any indication in the budget proposal that the administration 

is willing to deal with that problem. 

So those are concerns that I wanted to mention before we got 

into the testimony. Again, I thank the witnesses for being here. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

5

Well, I guess we are talking about a budget that, taking inflation 

into account, will be approximately one-half of one percent below 

where we were in 2004. Some of the major objectives I think are 

very interesting and we would like to hear more about them: the 

catastrophic wildfire risk, of course, and where those funds, how 

they will be allocated; the invasive species issue is a very important one, too, to many of us. 

There is also the Forest Service plans and operations having to 

do with energy and energy supply and the availability of access. I 

am also interested in hearing something more about the recreation 

fee program, which is something that is current, of course, here. 

Mr. Secretary, if you would like to go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, 

PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS, FOREST SERVICE 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman, for 

the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

for the Forest Service. That will be the budget for the centennial 

year of the Forest Service. Inasmuch as this is the agency’s first 

hearing on the President’s 2005 budget for the Forest Service, before discussing the specifics of the budget I would like to take the 

opportunity to express my gratitude and that of the President for 

the bipartisan support of this committee that led to the passage of 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. All of the members of this 

committee understand the devastation and tragedy caused by catastrophic wildfire and more than half of the members have experienced it firsthand in their States. So again, thank you for your help 

in seeing that bipartisan piece of legislation become a reality. 

The Chief will be highlighting a number of items of importance 

to the Forest Service budget today. In my testimony I will address 

just two of these issues. I will talk about the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the agency’s achievement of its second clean audit 

opinion in 2 years. 

Let me now specifically address the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act. Prior to fiscal year 2000, attention was beginning to focus on 

the vulnerability of natural resources to catastrophic wildland fire 

due to the buildup of hazardous fuels. The devastating fire season 

of 2000 brought the seriousness of the forest health problem to the 

homes of all Americans through seemingly constant reports in 

newspapers, on television, and in other media. 

I am glad that Congress has responded quickly with its support 

for treatment of hazardous fuels, invasive species infestations, and 

other threats to our Nation’s forests. The overwhelming support for 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in Congress underscores the 

importance of this legislation across the Nation. 

In reflecting the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, the fiscal 

year 2005 President’s budget places increased emphasis on protecting communities and property from the effects of castastrophic 

wildfire. The President’s budget request provides funding for many 

activities that support forest health, including a funding request for 

$760 million for activities in the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior that directly and visibly will result in proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
6

tecting communities, restoring watersheds through the reductions 

of hazardous fuels, and implementing the kinds of projects called 

for in title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

Now I would like to address the second issue, which is the clean 

audit opinion that the Forest Service recently received. This is the 

second unqualified opinion in the last 2 years for the Forest Service, after many years of financial accountability problems. The Forest Service and the Department are working to ensure that timely, 

reliable financial information is provided in which the receipt of a 

clean opinion is the byproduct of an efficient and cost-effective financial management organization and system that are sustainable 

in the long run. So that second clean audit opinion is very important to us. 

Now, if I might, I would like to digress for just a moment and 

respond to Senator Bingaman’s two concerns. I do not think that 

we have ever said that fire borrowing is not a problem. Indeed, I 

think our testimony over the last couple years has highlighted the 

problems that that creates. In previous budget requests the administration has suggested the creation of a government-wide contingency fund to provide a fund available to eliminate the need for fire 

borrowing from program accounts, and that is a proposal that as 

far as we are concerned is still on the table. 

I think what we have said throughout is, whether it is that proposal or some other, that we are eager to work with the appropriations, authorizing, and budget committees to see if we can find a 

better way to pay for the firefighting costs that we incur now on 

an increasingly severe basis as we experience a series of catastrophic wildfire seasons. 

With regard to rehabilitation work, much of the rehabilitation 

work that is increase as a result of the 2003 fires is already funded 

as a result of the supplemental appropriations provided in the omnibus appropriations bill. So what you see is in addition to that and 

we think will stand us in good stead for the longer term rehabilitation work that needs to be done. 

Much of the immediate rehabilitation work, that which occurs in 

the immediate post-fire environment, has already been paid for 

using fire suppression dollars under the authority to conduct 

burned area emergency recovery work under our fire suppression 

program. 

So we think that the administration’s budget request as best we 

know the circumstances on the ground right now will be adequate 

for those needs in addition to the money provided in the supplemental appropriations in the 2003 omnibus bill. 

With that, I would be happy to turn to the Chief. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

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

ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year FY 2005 Budget for the Forest 

Service. I am pleased to join Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, at the hearing today on the budget for the centennial year of the Forest Service. This is the 

agency’s first hearing on the President’s FY 2005 Budget for the Forest Service. Before discussing the specifics of that budget, I would like to take the opportunity express my gratitude and that of the President for the bipartisan support of this Committee that led to passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). All of the 

7

members of this Committee understand the devastation and tragedy caused by catastrophic wildfire and more than half of the members have experienced it firsthand 

in their States. The commitment to protecting communities and natural resources 

you demonstrated in passing the HFRA will be reflected in the priorities of the Forest Service for years to come. Again, thank you. 

OVERVIEW

Chief Bosworth will be highlighting a number of items of importance to the Forest 

Service today. In my testimony, I want to address two of these issues as well. I will 

talk more about the HFRA, and the agency’s achievement of its second ‘‘clean’’ audit 

opinion in 2 years. In managing natural resources, we often use the term ‘‘sustainability’’ in context of maintaining long-term forest and rangeland health and ensuring the long-term delivery of services to the American people. The bipartisan support demonstrated by Congress in passing the HFRA will ensure significant and 

measurable returns on the investment of the American public. ‘‘Sustainability’’ can 

also be applied to obtaining a clean opinion in terms of maintaining the public’s 

trust that their funds are being managed effectively. Implementing HRFA and effective financial management will require diligent and concerted efforts on the part of 

employees throughout the Forest Service to take the agency to sustainable levels of 

improvement. I am confident that the Forest Service under Chief Bosworth’s leadership will meet these challenges and continue to provide the high quality of natural 

resources management that the American public expects. 

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT

Let me specifically address the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Prior to fiscal 

year (FY) 2000, attention was beginning to focus on the vulnerability of natural resources to catastrophic wildland fires due to the buildup of hazardous fuels. In the 

late 1990’s, the Forest Service developed risk maps that highlighted fuels buildups 

and serious threats to forest health throughout the Nation. I recall Senator Craig 

noting in reviewing what was referred to as ‘‘forest risk maps,’’ that northern Idaho 

was a ‘‘big red blob’’ signifying the dangerous buildup of hazardous fuels in that 

area. Because of the serious nature of the problem throughout the Nation, and especially in the West, Congress responded by authorizing focused experiments to restore health and productivity of our forests and rangelands by authorizing the Quincy Library Group activities in northern California, as well as stewardship end results contracting demonstration authority. 

The devastating fire season of 2000 brought the seriousness of the forest health 

problem to the homes of all Americans, through seemingly constant reports in newspapers, on television, and in other media. The catastrophic fire seasons of 2002 and 

2003 further underscored the problem. Although the Forest Service and bureaus in 

the Department of the Interior have worked together diligently since 2000, the complexity and extent of the problem do not afford us quick solutions. From 2001 to 

2003, the Forest Service and Department of the Interior agencies have treated a 

total of 7 million acres to reduce the levels of hazardous fuels in our Nation’s forests 

and grasslands. In FY 2004, the Forest Service will treat an additional 1.6 million 

acres and plans to treat 1.8 million acres in FY 2005 with hazardous fuels funds. 

Additionally, in FY 2004, the agency will accomplish more than 600,000 acres of 

hazardous fuels reduction through other land management activities including wildlife habitat improvement, vegetation management, and the sale of forest products. 

This integration of land management treatments is an important aspect of the 

President’s healthy forest emphasis 

Congress has responded quickly with its support for treatment of hazardous fuels, 

invasive species infestations, and other threats to our Nation’s forests. Funding for 

hazardous fuels reduction and fire suppression activities since FY 2000 has increased dramatically. In response to the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative 

(HFI), Congress, with strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, 

passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in December 2003, which contains key 

elements of the HFI. This Act gives the Forest Service and the Department of the 

Interior much-needed tools and authorities to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire to communities and to restore our Nation’s forests and grasslands. Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, your support and that of Senator Bingaman and 

other members of the Committee have provided a focus on natural resource management today. This is especially true for the support you have shown for the HFI and 

HFRA. 

The overwhelming support for the HFRA in Congress underscores the importance 

of this legislation across the Nation. The passage of this legislation shows the American people that Congress and the Administration are working together to combat 

8

hazardous fuels buildups, insect and disease infestations, and other threats to the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands. Through the HFRA, Congress has also provided 

Federal land management agencies with additional tools to improve the condition 

of watersheds, as well as fish and wildlife habitat; enhance grazing allotments; and 

utilize biomass from forest lands, which may in turn provide local communities with 

new, and often needed, economic opportunities. 

HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

In reflecting the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, the FY 2005 President’s 

Budget places increased emphasis on protecting communities and property from the 

effects of catastrophic wildfire. The President’s Budget provides funding for many 

activities that support forest health, including $760 million for activities in the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior that directly and visibly will result 

in protecting communities and restoring watersheds through the reduction of hazardous fuels. With this funding and by working together, the Forest Service and Interior bureaus will be able to treat more acres more quickly. Much of the coordination for these activities will come about through the 10-Year Cohesive Strategy and 

Implementation Plan, in which Federal, State, tribal, and local partnerships have 

formed a foundation to improve the protection of natural resources and communities. 

Some of the key aspects of the HFI include administrative initiatives that help 

expedite projects designed to restore forest and rangeland health. These efforts include new procedures, provided under the National Environmental Policy Act, to 

allow priority fuels reduction and forest restoration projects identified through collaboration with State local, and tribal governments to move forward more quickly. 

Guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality has helped to improve environmental assessments for priority forest health projects. As a result, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have developed 15 pilot fuels projects using 

this guidance and have completed the assessments on 13 of the 15 projects. Another 

improvement to the administrative process has been early and more meaningful 

public participation in the planning and implementation of forest health projects. 

Let me provide some examples of what can be accomplished with the new authorities. Due to its mountainous topography, the Gila National Forest in southern New 

Mexico has the highest fire occurrences in the State. Dense stands of mature trees 

and a continuing drought have combined to create a very dangerous wildland fire 

situation that threatens local communities and wildlife and fisheries habitat. In the 

summer of 2003, the Gila National Forest successfully used expedited administrative processes to complete planning on four categorical exclusions under the Healthy 

Forests Initiative. The four projects total 510 acres. All of the projects will reduce 

hazardous fuels by removing trees mechanically and using prescribed fire. Small diameter non-commercial trees will be chipped or piled and burned. Since some of the 

projects are located in and around communities, this effort will afford additional 

protection to the communities, which may be the difference that avoids disaster during a wildland fire. 

In Arizona, the benefits of stewardship contracting authority, which was significantly enhanced under HFRA, will be realized through a 10-year project on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. The White River stewardship project, which will 

start this spring, includes multiple treatments over a 150,000-acre area. The project 

will use the full stewardship contracting authority authorized in HFRA, thereby reducing costs of current contracting methods by one-half to two-thirds. The project 

has the full support of the Governor, county commissioners, and local officials. 

The administrative relief provided in the Healthy Forests Initiative made possible 

the planning and implementation of these projects in the same year, thereby allowing projects that are essential to protecting communities to proceed as quickly as 

possible. HFI is helping to decrease the wildfire threat to communities in a timely 

manner and promote a healthier forest. I firmly believe that over the long term, the 

reduction of hazardous fuels in priority areas through efforts supported by the 

HFRA will be the single most important factor in reducing the cost of wildfire suppression. 

With Federal wildfire suppression costs exceeding $1 billion in 3 out of the last 

4 fiscal years, this factor alone makes passage of the HFRA an important accomplishment. The FY 2005 President’s Budget also reflects a continued commitment 

to containing wildfire suppression costs by including cost containment performance 

measures and implementation of actions called for in the FY 2004 President’s Budget, including a study of the use of aviation resources on large fires. An emphasis 

on the accountability of line officers and incident commanders also will be continued. 

9

CLEAN AUDIT OPINION

Now I would like to address the second issue, which is the ‘‘clean’’ audit opinion 

the Forest Service recently received. This is the second unqualified opinion in the 

last 2 years for the Forest Service, after many years of financial accountability problems. The Forest Service and the Department are working to ensure that timely, 

reliable financial information is provided in which the receipt of a clean opinion is 

a byproduct of an efficient and cost-effective financial management organization and 

system sustainable in the long term. Chief Bosworth can be justifiably proud of the 

accomplishment of two clean audits, although as I noted last year, it is the minimum the public should expect. However, as he will tell you later, achieving this 

opinion required a Herculean effort by Forest Service employees that cannot be sustained with the organization that is currently in place. This effort was highlighted 

in the USDA’s Office of Inspector General’s Audit Report for Fiscal Years 2003 and 

2002, which stated that the Forest Service does not operate as an effective, sustainable, and accountable financial management organization. This illustrates additional work on business process design, operation, and control needs to be undertaken to address the reportable conditions and material weaknesses indicated in the 

FY 2002 and FY 2003 audits. 

With this in mind, there are two imperative objectives the Forest Service will be 

facing this year: sustaining the clean audit opinion for FY 2004 and, even more importantly, addressing the underlying financial management infrastructure challenges the Forest Service faces by building a highly reliable and cost-effective financial management organization. A massive effort to meet the FY 2004 accelerated 

and congressionally-mandated audit deadline of November 15, 2004 is already under 

way. The approach being used is different than those used in the past, in an effort 

to find and address financial accountability problems as early as possible. In addition, the agency is taking steps to consolidate and centralize operations where feasible and practicable in order to make a more efficient and cost-effective organization. I know Chief Bosworth is committed to implementing reforms that will ensure 

the continued trust of the American taxpayer and the most efficient administrative 

organization possible. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me emphasize the importance of the FY 2005 President’s Budget for the Forest Service. We have great opportunities and challenges 

ahead. Due to the support of Congress for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, we 

can pursue a strategy for returning our Nation’s forests and grasslands to a healthy 

state. As you know, this will take time, but with the continued support of your Committee and Congress, we will be able to see significant, sustained progress in that 

direction and will ultimately reach our goal. 

I look forward to working with you in implementing the agency’s fiscal year 2005 

program and would be happy to answer any questions.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Chief Bosworth. 

STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF,

FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman. I do want to thank you especially for your continued support 

of the Forest Service mission and particularly for the support in 

passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Its passage is going 

to help our organization become much more efficient in terms of 

getting some of that work done on the ground that needs to be 

done. 

I would like to note that, after looking at the membership of the 

committee, that half of the members, between half and two-thirds 

of the members of the committee, have felt the effects of catastrophic wildfire in the past few years. I think that reflects how 

widespread our problem is. The need to prevent this in the future 

is exactly why the HFRA is so important. 

10

I want to discuss the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the 

wildfire issues more, but first I would like to note that, as Secretary Rey said, this is our—next year will be our centennial year 

and this is our 101st budget of the Forest Service. In 1905 the Agriculture Appropriations Act for the Forest Service was slightly less 

than a million dollars in total. In 1905 Secretary Wilson of USDA 

gave instructions to the Chief, Gifford Pinchot, that are the basis 

for the multiple use principles that guide us today. Those were: 

‘‘administer forest reserves for the greatest good for the greatest 

number in the long run.’’

That term ‘‘long run’’ I think is synonymous with the term ‘‘sustainability’’ that we use often today. So my remarks are primarily 

about sustainability, and I will frame those by talking about 

healthy forests in the context of what I have been referring to as 

the four great threats to our Nation’s forests and grasslands. The 

first of those is the unnatural accumulation of buildup of fuel, with 

the resulting fires. The second one is unwanted invasive species 

that we see all across the country. The third is loss of open space 

and the fourth is effects of unmanaged recreation. People love their 

national forests to death in some cases. 

Before talking about those four threats, though, I would like to 

talk a little bit about financial management. As Secretary Rey said, 

we did get our second clean audit opinion. We are happy with that, 

but we burned out a lot of our hardworking employees in the process. We are spending about over $125 million every year just in our 

financial management. That is too much. Those are dollars that 

should be going to the ground. 

This effort is not sustainable organized the way that we are. We 

are actually organized, I think, pretty well for the 1950’s. We need 

to reorganize for the future. I intend to do a significant centralization of our financial management. I still believe in decentralization 

of decisionmaking, but our financial management needs to be centralized. 

I know that some of the members of this committee may hear 

from some of your constituents when we start doing that and I 

hope that we will have your support and understanding and would 

be happy to brief any of you as we work our way through this. But 

we have to do this if we are going to sustain the public trust in 

Forest Service financial management. 

Now, I would like to talk about what I think I know more about 

and that is management of our natural resources. I will start with 

the first of the four threats that I mentioned earlier. Last week I 

was in southern California with our national leadership team and 

we held our national leadership team meeting near Lake Arrowhead so we could view some of the devastation of the fires and also 

look at the hundreds of thousands of acres of bark beetle damage 

occurring in that area. 

I am very concerned about what I saw—the widespread forest 

mortality. We are incinerating, burning in incinerators, something 

like 5300 tons per month of wood, just to get it out of the woods 

because there is no other place to take it. That would be enough 

to build 500 homes. We are burying in landfills probably three 

times that amount in order to remove that dead material from the 

woods. That is next door to one of the largest markets in the 

11

United States, one of the largest consumptive areas in the United 

States, where we are importing two by fours from other places to 

local Home Depots while right up on the mountaintop we are having to bury wood that could be used. 

I am just an old forester and I do not know a lot about trade 

issues and I am not really talking about trade issues. I am talking 

about the fact that past practices have eliminated any wood-based 

infrastructure from the market in these areas. So we are burning 

wood and burying wood that should and could be used as forest 

products, and that is painful as a professional forester for me to observe. 

I think that problem either exists or will exist around the rest 

of this country if we do not maintain some kind of infrastructure 

for being able to utilize some of our wood products. 

So how do we deal with this serious threat? Well, HFRA I think 

provides $33 million increased funding for hazardous fuels. Longterm stewardship contracts give us some additional authorities. We 

are getting some efficiencies through our categorical exclusions. Reduction of hazardous fuels can be accomplished with more than just 

hazardous fuels funding as well. The President’s Health Forests 

Initiative is strongly supported in the 2005 budget through other 

kinds of treatments that will help restore watersheds and reduce 

hazardous fuels, things like wildlife habitat improvement, vegetation management, sale of forest products. 

Let me move on to invasive species. Unwanted invasives, unwanted weeds, unwanted pests and pathogens are a problem. Last 

year I referred to that as a sleeping giant. Our budget this year 

contains important emphasis on invasives: a $10 million increase 

in research, $10 million for an emerging pest and pathogen fund. 

We just developed in the Forest Service an invasive species strategic plan that is just almost off the press right now and that will 

help guide us in terms of dealing with other organizations on 

invasives. 

The third threat was the loss of open space. The budget contains 

a $36 million increase in forest legacy programs. It will help us 

build partnerships and help us acquire some easements so that we 

can maintain some of those lands in good condition. 

The fourth, the fourth threat, was unmanaged recreation. The 

national forests are one of the largest providers of outdoor recreation in America, with 211 million visits in fiscal year 2002. Imagine the demand in another 50 years on these lands as the population increases. National and international priorities prevent 

greater funding emphasis on the recreation program and I accept 

that. So we need to focus on increased partnerships and program 

efficiency. The President’s budget proposes a permanent authority 

for what has been the recreation fee demo program over the past 

several years and I am committed to making the Forest Service 

part of that recreation fee authority and I want to work closely 

with this committee to achieve that goal. 

A couple of remarks in closing. Little did I realize when I went 

to work for the Forest Service that I would be Chief and that I 

would be here for the 101st budget of the Forest Service. If you 

count the length of my service and the length of my father’s service 

in the Forest Service, the Bosworths have been in the Forest ServVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
12

ice for two-thirds of our agency’s history. I cannot tell you what an 

honor that has been for me. 

Although I cannot tell you that I look forward to the hearing season that we are in right now, that we have each year, I will tell 

you that it is a privilege to be here today for no other reason than 

just to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to this committee for your support that you have shown for the Forest Service, 

for the health of America’s forests, and for protecting the resources 

and the communities from the risk of wildfire. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bosworth follows:]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Budget. I also want 

to personally thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman for the support provided to the Forest Service this past year in supporting the President’s Healthy Forest Restoration Act and for the strong support in protecting America’s forests and 

rangelands from the threat of catastrophic wildfire. I know this commitment is 

founded in the fact that, as Under Secretary Rey noted, close to half the members 

of this Committee have experienced such devastating fires in their states. 

OVERVIEW

This President’s Budget is for the Forest Service’s centennial year. It supports the 

agency’s mission of sustainable natural resource management. On February 1, 1905, 

President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law The Transfer Act, transferring the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. 

On March 3, 1905, the Appropriations Act for the Department of Agriculture referenced the ‘‘Forest Service.’’ On the day of the transfer, then-Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, wrote a letter of instruction to the first forester of the Forest 

Service, Gifford Pinchot. He directed that:

In the administration of the forest reserves it must be clearly borne in mind 

that all land is to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good 

of the whole people, and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies. Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be 

decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the 

long run.

Now, 100 years later, that advice encompasses the multiple use management 

principle that guides the Forest Service’s program of work. We are here today to 

ensure that our nation’s forests and grasslands are treasured resources for the benefit and enjoyment of all people now and in the future. The decisions made in formulating the President’s FY 2005 budget for the Forest Service are for the longterm good of the public and the resources that we are entrusted to manage for the 

American people. 

I am here to talk with you today about the FY 2005 President’s Budget request 

for the Forest Service as we enter a new century of service to America. In 1905, 

the Forest Service spent just shy of $1 million total for the young agency. As we 

propose a budget to begin the second century for the agency, the President’s request 

is $4.9 billion, $68.4 million greater than the FY 2004 enacted budget, excluding 

emergency funding for repayment of fire transfers and funds for Southern California. The FY 2005 Budget provides funding to reduce the risk of wildland fire to 

communities and the environment by implementing the Healthy Forest Initiative 

and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) which President Bush signed into 

law this past December. In addition, increased funds are provided for research, fire 

suppression, Forest Legacy, Forest Products, and Minerals and Geology. 

In my testimony today, I want to reflect on the challenges faced by the Forest 

Service in 2005, many of which are similar to those faced in 1905. I want to discuss 

the new opportunities offered by HFRA that will result in improved forest and 

rangeland management, healthier landscapes, and reduced risk of catastrophic 

wildfires. I want to talk about four major challenges facing the Forest Service, 

which I often refer to as the ‘‘four threats.’’ I also want to highlight some other areas 

13

of performance accountability and legislative emphasis that comprise the President’s 

FY 2005 budget. 

As I talk with you today about the FY 2005 budget, I am reminded of the challenges that the agency, Congress, and the American public have worked through 

and worked out over the past 100 years. A brief review of the land management 

issues of 1905 shows that issues were as contentious back then as they are today. 

The challenges that we faced today are still contentious and complex. I believe, however, that we have an opportunity to change the debate. We want the American people to judge us not on what is taken off the land, but how we have improved its 

condition after conducting natural resource management activities. 

PROGRESS TOWARDS HEALTHY FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS—PROTECTING COMMUNITIES

Today, the cleanest water in the country comes from our national forests. More 

than 60 million Americans get their drinking water from watersheds that originate 

on national forests and grasslands. A century ago, competition for clean water in 

America was not the issue it is today and will be in the future. Protecting wilderness values wasn’t on the radar screen 100 years ago. Today, we protect some 35 

million acres of wilderness, about 18 percent of the land in our National Forest System. At the 1905 American Forest Congress, President Roosevelt spoke of vast forest 

destruction and an inevitable timber famine if the destruction continued. Large 

parts of the East and South were cutover, burned over, and farmed improperly. 

Today, tens of millions of acres of federal, state, and private forests in the East and 

South have been restored and the total number of forested acres is the same as 100 

years ago. A century ago, many animal and plant species were severely depleted or 

on the brink of extinction. Today, many of these species have made remarkable 

comebacks after finding refuge on our nation’s forests and grasslands. A century 

ago, the profession of forestry was in its infancy in the United States. Early foresters used a much younger set of scientific principles in managing natural resources. Today, after 90 years of Forest Service research, we have a much firmer 

and broader scientific foundation for sustaining forest ecosystems into the future. 

REDUCING THE THREAT OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE

Today, we are putting research-based knowledge to use in restoring the nation’s 

watersheds to a healthy condition. The President’s Budget provides $266 million, an 

increase of $33 million over the funding appropriated in FY 2004, to reduce hazardous fuel. This will allow treatment of 1.8 million acres, an increase of 200,000 

acres above the 2004 level. Over the past several decades, declining forest health 

conditions have led to an increasing incidence of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. 

Forests that are naturally adapted to frequent natural fires have gone many years 

without such fire, thus becoming overly dense and laden with fuels. These forests 

are at abnormally high risk to damage from wildfire as well as insects, diseases, 

or infestations of invasive plants. The President has acted to address this risk by 

establishing his Healthy Forest Initiative and providing a budget for hazardous fuel 

reduction that has more than tripled since FY 2000. In addition, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act passed by Congress last year will bring new administrative initiatives that will compliment expanded stewardship contracting authority that will 

further reduce hazardous fuels and restore watersheds. 

Mr. Chairman, we need only look at how expenditures for wildland fire suppression have doubled in the last 10 years, to understand the need for this bold strategy. 

Just this past October we saw a graphic illustration of the serious forest and rangeland health problems we face. Although tragic in terms of loss of life and property, 

the severe wildfires in Southern California this past fall burned for the most part 

in mixed ownership chaparral areas and did not appreciably affect the forest health 

situation on forested lands in Southern California, particularly on the San 

Bernardino National Forest. In the forested areas, much of the remaining unburned 

acres are still choked with mostly small trees, many of which are dead and dying 

from drought and bark beetle infestations. Much of these forested lands are still at 

risk. Additional work remains on the national forests in Southern California as well 

as on other areas across the country that are experiencing serious forest health 

problems. Nor are these risks limited only to Federal lands. Mitigating the risks of 

catastrophic wildfires and treating forest health challenges across ownerships and 

jurisdictions requires cooperative action to be taken on the parts of governments, 

communities, private landowners and individual homeowners. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of Congress for working last year to pass the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and expanded Stewardship 

Contracting authority. The President’s Budget and new authorities provided by 

HFRA will aid Forest Service field managers work with local communities to treat 

14

more areas more quickly than in the past. The President’s Budget also recognizes 

the need to integrate the fuels reduction program with other programs that support 

wildlife habitat improvements, watershed enhancements, vegetation management, 

and forest products. Restoring and rehabilitating our fire-adapted ecosystems may 

be the most important task that our agency undertakes. To provide optimal wildfire 

risk mitigation across the landscape, we are prioritizing our hazardous fuels reduction work to ensure the most beneficial use of funds. We are moving from treating 

symptoms towards treating the underlying problems, and treating hazardous fuel in 

locations on our nation’s forests and rangelands where they will be most likely to 

influence large-scale fire behavior. We expect this approach to restore forest health 

and significantly reduce the potential for large, damaging fires over the long term, 

as well as the costs of fires that do occur both—in terms of the taxpayer and the 

environment. 

We must also realize that it is not only the hazardous fuel reduction program that 

will improve overall forest and rangeland health. The integrated approach of multiple management activities in the agency’s wildlife, grazing, vegetative management, and timber programs will improve the condition of the land, or in the Forest 

Service vernacular ‘‘improve condition class.’’ This emphasis encompasses one of the 

‘‘four threats’’ I refer to in managing this agency. We are committed to accomplishing the aggressive treatments planned in the President’s Budget for FY 2005 

using new authorities in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act that improve the condition class of the nation’s watersheds and thus protect communities and resources 

for future generations and our Research Station directors are committed to providing the Forest Service with the best science available. 

I have discussed in detail wildland fire, the first of the ‘‘four threats.’’ I will discuss elsewhere in my testimony the other three threats; invasive species, loss of 

open space, and unmanaged outdoor recreation. Before doing so, let me highlight 

other areas that will require our attention in our Centennial year. 

PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

The Forest Service efforts to improve agency efficiency continue to focus on the 

implementation of the five initiatives in the President’s Management Agenda 

(PMA). One key element of the PMA is improved financial performance. In the past 

few years we made an unprecedented effort to get our financial house in order. For 

a second year in a row, we received a clean audit opinion. We look forward, in the 

not too distant future, to also seeing the agency removed from the General Accounting Office ‘‘high risk list.’’ I am proud of our financial management progress. To be 

candid, however, the effort made by Forest Service employees to keep the agency 

from falling into a type of financial receivership was so unprecedented that the 

agency cannot sustain this level of effort as we are currently organized. Our internal 

financial management and administrative support infrastructure is based on a 50-

year-old model that is archaic. It does not operate within acceptable governmentwide standards. It fails to use today’s technology and business based models that 

can make our operations more efficient and our accountability the best it can be. 

With this in mind, the Forest Service will implement a new model for Forest Service 

financial management that involves significant centralization and consolidation of 

administrative support. We anticipate a minimum cost savings of $30-$40 million 

over time, although there may be some short-term costs incurred associated with 

setting up this model. 

We are also reengineering human resource management processes. Our objectives 

are to maximize automation, streamline processes, provide for consistency, and reduce overhead costs. At the same time, we will ensure compatibility with OPM’s 

Government-wide initiatives. 

We will implement this overhaul without affecting the ability of field line officers 

to make decisions about natural resource management. We will continue to put considerable effort into improving the effectiveness of our financial management and 

administrative support program with the objectives of improving efficiency, reducing 

indirect costs, and dedicating funds to accomplish on-the-ground resource management objectives. 

An important tool that will help the agency improve its operational and program 

accountability is contained in the President’s Management Agenda. It is the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). For FY 2005, the Office of Management and 

Budget conducted reviews on the Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program, Land Acquisition Program, and reevaluated the Capital Improvement and Maintenance Program. This analysis recommended that the programs reviewed include the development of long-term measures that focus on outcomes, development of efficiency measVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
15

ures that assess the cost on a unit basis, and completion of program analysis to help 

focus program objectives and management. 

The PART process for FY 2006 will assist the agency in addressing one of the 

‘‘four threats’’ because the agency will utilize PART to evaluate invasive species activities. In addition to utilizing PART, the agency will use funds to address emerging threats to the nation’s natural resources from the spread of unwanted pests and 

pathogens. The President’s Budget proposes $10 million for an Emerging Pest and 

Pathogen fund to be used for quick response. We will integrate our National Forest 

System, State and Private Forestry, and Forest and Rangeland Research programs 

to ensure we are focused on this invasive species threat. I intend to emphasize line 

officer performance accountability for halting the spread of invasives as an important element of the performance appraisal process. The PART program will be a tool 

to ensure the effort is integrated, outcome-based, and properly focused. 

RESEARCH

I noted earlier that I felt the agency’s Forest and Rangeland Research program 

was a foundation of improved ecosystem health. I am pleased to support an FY 2005 

President’s Budget request that emphasizes a renewed focus on Research as a foundation for establishing management practices that are applied to the national forests and grasslands as well as state, tribal, local, and international lands. The total 

Research and Development budget for FY 2005 is up $14.3 million. 

The President’s FY 2005 Budget recognizes that the demand for solutions based 

on research is exceptionally high, and the Forest Service should organize to optimize 

the delivery of information to provide solutions in the timeliest, accurate manner. 

To enhance the linkage between forest researchers and on-the-ground resource managers in both the public and private sectors, it is critical that the most efficient development and delivery of mission-critical information be employed. Enhancing the 

linkage between the information user and the information generator helps ensure 

this efficiency. The President’s Budget provides additional funding for optimizing 

the transfer and implementation of research findings. Within R&D, $7.2 million is focused on research that will protect water quality 

for human use and aquatic habitat, and provide improved tools for land managers 

to restore native vegetation on sites disturbed by fire and mechanical means. This 

program increase will also afford the agency the opportunity to continue its research 

focus on controls for newly arrived insects including the hemlock wooly adelgid, the 

Asian long-horned beetle, invasive bark beetles, and the emerald ash borer. In addition to this significant program increase, the State and Private Forestry technology 

applications program will be integrated with the Research and Development mission 

area. We expect an improved technology applications program that focuses on a thematic basis, including applications in hazardous fuel utilization, fire science applications, invasive species, watershed, and other mission critical areas. 

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

The third of the four threats that I have emphasized involves the loss of open 

space. The President’s Budget fully funds the Land and Water Conservation program, including a $35.8 million increase in the Forest Legacy Program. The program has seen great success in addressing the threat of reduced open space through 

the use of conservation easements in partnership with private landowners to maintain viable and healthy forested lands. The PART review of the program by OMB 

found that management of the Forest Legacy Program is valuable and generally 

strong. We will work to improve performance measures that track the percentage 

of priority forest lands at risk of conversion to non-forest uses that are currently 

in a contiguous forest condition. 

RECREATION

The last of the four threats to the nation’s resources involves the challenges posed 

by unmanaged recreation. To use an old phrase, in many areas of the national forests we are ‘‘loving our public lands to death.’’ The FY 2005 budget reflects an increase of $2.3 million in the Recreation budget. With this in mind, I intend to have 

the agency focus on managing the program with improved efficiency and greater reliance on partnerships. Moreover, our work in the area of hazardous fuel reduction 

and invasive species provides a number of benefits that protect and enhance the 

quality of recreation on National Forest System lands. 

The Forest Service is a leading provider of outdoor recreation opportunities in the 

nation. People visited national forests and grasslands over 211 million times in FY 

2002. These millions of visitors expect cleared trails, accessible facilities, and safe 

experiences. They also cause significant impacts on the land and on our facilities, 

16

as they hike, camp, kayak, ski, hunt, or fish on our federal lands. Since 1997, we 

have relied on fees from the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program to provide 

safe, enjoyable, and memorable experiences for these millions of visitors. We know 

that without those fees, we would be hard pressed to keep some campgrounds open, 

toilets cleaned, and trails safely maintained. The President’s FY 2005 legislative 

proposals include permanent authority for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Visitor use continues to increase, especially near urban areas and many of 

the very special places we manage on our national forests and grasslands. As more 

and more people enjoy these places, their presence comes with the price of increased 

needs for maintaining facilities, equipment, and the land itself. Through the Fee 

Demo Program, the recreating public has told us how important increased safety 

and security is to them, an elevated service made possible through Fee Demo funds. 

This is the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Wilderness Act, a bold legislative action that secured the enduring benefits of wilderness for present and future 

generations. The Forest Service manages 32 percent of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and was the first Federal agency to manage a designated wilderness area. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment finds that 

Americans who know about wilderness tremendously value it. 

Our backlog in deferred maintenance for our facilities continues to be a challenge. 

This backlog includes facilities for providing recreation opportunities to the public, 

as well as our administrative sites where employees work and provide services to 

the public. The budget reflects improvements made by the Forest Service in implementing recommendations contained in a PART review of the Capital Improvement 

and Maintenance program, and includes $10 million to address deferred maintenance. 

In addition, there are important legislative proposals to be presented by the Administration that will help us leverage limited discretionary appropriations to accomplish key objectives of the recreation and other administrative programs. The 

Administration will submit legislation proposing a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund. This authority will provide a useful tool for reducing our administrative site backlog through an authorization to dispose of lands and improvements 

in excess of our needs, and use the proceeds for infrastructure improvements. 

The Administration will propose expanded and consolidated partnership authorities to make it easier and more efficient for third parties to get involved in the agency’s recreation program as well as other management programs and activities. This 

legislation will streamline the ability of the Forest Service to collaborate with nonFederal partners in achieving natural resource management goals. Forest Service 

directives cite over 30 different laws relating to partnerships and 14 different types 

of agreement instruments document partnership relationships. Navigating this complex patchwork of authorities and agreements has hindered the agency’s ability to 

work efficiently and effectively with nonprofit and community partners. We look forward to working with Congress in making it more efficient to work with partners 

in managing the national forests. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

As the Forest Service focuses on a new century of service to Americans, its emphasis will be centered on management activities that address the four threats and 

the goals of the Healthy Forests Initiative. Our success over the long term will reduce the risk to communities and natural resources from catastrophic wildland fire. 

The Forest Service, in partnership with the Department of the Interior and state 

and local agencies, is committed to protecting communities and resources with the 

best and most efficient fire fighting infrastructure possible. 

The total wildland fire budget for FY 2005 is $1.4 billion including an $88.3 million increase over the FY 2004 enacted level for fire suppression. This increase reflects the ten-year average cost for fire suppression. I want to address several important wildfire suppression issues. 

Wildfire suppression activities are dangerous. Unfortunately, last year we lost five 

lives in fires related to the Forest Service. The agency continually evaluates the fire 

suppression program for safety, and makes improvements to reduce the risk to firefighters. After the Thirtymile fire in 2001, the Forest Service implemented a number of significant changes to improve safety measures for firefighters and the public. 

Changes were developed in cooperation with OSHA, the Department of the Interior, 

and other interagency partners through the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 

We have clarified and added emphasis on fatigue awareness and work/rest guidelines; added driving guidelines for transportation safety; and improved risk assessment and mitigation procedures. We continue to scrutinize our firefighting program 

to make additional safety improvements, including an examination of relation of 

17

completed fire management plans and the deployment of incident personnel in locations where resource values are minimal. Areas we are particularly concentrating 

on are human factors such as experience and leadership. While we will never remove all the risk from firefighting, we will constantly work to reduce the risks. We 

must never compromise our emphasis on components of the agency’s budget that 

might affect the safety of our workforce. 

This past year we have aggressively focused on reducing the costs of firefighting 

efforts. The President’s budget proposes new incentives for reducing wildfire suppression costs including the allocation of suppression funds to Forest Service regions, and the authority to retain unexpended suppression funds for use in forest 

restoration activities consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forest Initiatives and 

HFRA. It also includes the establishment of clearer rules concerning the use of suppression resources and incentives for rapid demobilization and better use of local 

non-federal resources. I am proud of the fact that in FY 2003 we kept more than 

98 percent of all unwanted fires that started from becoming large fires in 2003. 

While large fires represent only 2 percent of the total number of fires, over the past 

few decades they have accounted for more than 87 percent of the total costs for fire 

suppression. Many large fires are complex and more expensive to suppress today 

than 20 years ago, and they can be more dangerous. The costs of containing fires 

in the wildland urban interface will likely continue to be high as we struggle to keep 

fire from destroying people’s homes and livelihoods. At the same time, the President’s FY 2005 Budget reflects the full implementation of fire management plans 

completed for all National Forest Systems lands that will allow for cost savings associated with a full range of suppression actions, including an increased use of 

wildland fire use fires, as appropriate. It also contains new performance measures 

that will provide baselines on which the total cost of fire suppression can be assessed. 

Over the past year, we have completed the Consolidated Large Fire Cost Report 

2003, in which we have identified areas to contain costs. Clearly, reducing the number and improving the way we manage large fires will lead to lower costs. I have 

issued policy direction that states, ‘‘Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected, consistent 

with resource objectives.’’ We will take the lessons learned from the past year and 

continue efforts to reduce the costs of large fires. We will also look at better ways 

to use fire in its natural role and will work together with our Federal, Tribal, State, 

and local partners to accomplish these goals. 

CONCLUSION: ENTERING A NEW CENTURY OF SERVICE

Our agency’s 100th anniversary is a time for us as an agency to reflect on our 

history, the contributions we have made as stewards of our nation’s natural resources, and lessons we have learned to provide world-class public service into the 

future. We see FY 2005 as a time to broaden public understanding and appreciation 

of our nation’s forests and grasslands, and a time to broaden partnerships worldwide to collectively sustain our natural resources. In this centennial year we will 

sponsor several events and activities that help focus this attention. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say again how honored I am to be here as Chief presenting 

the 101st President’s Budget for the Forest Service. We have 100 years of amazing 

accomplishments. We also have 100 years of promises to keep, 100 years of laws 

and regulations to uphold. For 100 years, Americans have both applauded us and 

picketed our doors. The country has seen sweeping changes over those 100 years, 

and many innovative tools to help us keep up with those changes. 

As we enter our second century of service, the continued prosperity of our country 

is in large part dependent on sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of 

our Nation’s forests and grasslands. This is the Forest Service’s mission today. And 

much as Secretary Wilson directed the agency in 1905, our successes are only as 

great as our ability to act under a businesslike structure, promptly, effectively, and 

with common sense. I am proud of the many accomplishments our talented and 

dedicated employees have given to this country and the mission they face in entering this new century of service. 

We still have much work to do and many challenges to undertake. Restoring the 

nation’s forests and grasslands in balance with society’s goals will take time. We 

have new tools to help meet those challenges in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

and expanded Stewardship Contracting authority, in continued research to support 

these complex challenges, and through the work we continue to do with local communities and partners new ways of solving land management problems in more effective and inclusive ways. 

18

I enlist your continued support and look forward to working with you toward that 

end. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. As you can see, all three 

of us here are very involved in forests in our States. 

Senator Murkowski, did you have an opening statement? 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, welcome to Chief Bosworth and to you, Mr. Rey. I appreciate all 

the years of service that both you and your family have given. We 

certainly look forward to working with the administration regarding this budget request and appreciate your comments this morning, although I was not able to listen to all of them. 

I have a couple areas of interest that I am going to focus on in 

my questions, primarily the State and private forestry program, 

which many of my constituents in Alaska rely on. I’d also like to 

focus on the wildland fire management accounts and how the administration plans to fund the Healthy Forests Act. 

In looking at the State and private forestry program, I am troubled that the budget reflects a decrease of 16 percent.In particular, 

I am troubled by the proposed zero funding for the economic action 

program. As you know, I have many, many communities in my 

State that rely on the EAP in order to diversify their forest-dependent economies. These are the communities in and around the Chugach and the Tongass. So I am going to have a couple questions 

for you there. But it concerns me that the administration is perhaps sending a message to Congress that assistance to the small 

forest-dependent communities is not a priority. 

The other program of importance that I want to go into a little 

bit more is the Federal land enhancement program. In our State, 

the Alaska Forest Service depends greatly on this cost-share program to assist the landowners as they implement a variety of onthe-ground forest land enhancement practices, particularly the reforestation after the beetle kill and the forest thinning. So I want 

to go into a little bit more in terms of what is going on with this 

reprogramming and, if we are talking about other high-priority programs, knowing exactly what those are. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have a much longer opening statement which 

I will ask be included in the record. At this point in time I will reserve the balance of my questions for a later point. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]

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

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and other members of this Committee. Welcome to 

both of our witnesses, Mr. Mark Rey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Mr. Dale Bosworth. 

I look forward to working with this Administration regarding the upcoming 2005 

Budget Request and hearing from our witnesses today on the various requests for 

the programs that manage and support our national forests and grasslands. 

I am particularly interested in the State & Private Forestry Program of which 

many of my constituents in Alaska rely upon. I am also interested in the Wildland 

Fire Management Accounts and how the Administration plans to fund the ‘‘Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act of 2003.’’ It is critical for its timely implementation to get 

on-the-ground dollars to those forested lands most in need of fuels reduction. 

In reviewing this budget request for the Forest Service, I am troubled that the 

budget reflects a decrease of 16% ($63.8 million) in the State & Private Forestry 

19

Program. This program, as you know, provides technical and financial assistance to 

landowners and resource managers to help sustain the Nation’s urban and rural forests and to protect communities and the environment from wildland fires. 

In particular, for the third year in a row, the President’s Budget proposes zero 

funding for the Economic Action Program (EAP) that was funded at approximately 

$25 million in FY ’03 and FY ’04 with $2 million going to Alaska each year. I am 

very concerned about zero funding for Fiscal Year 2005. 

In my home state of Alaska, many communities rely upon the EAP in order to 

diversify their forest-dependent economics. In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the EAP 

provided grants to 17 communities near the Chugach and Tongass National Forests 

alone. 

The EAP also provided dry kilns, planers and lumber-storage facilities to eleven 

Alaska-owned businesses. (Nenana Lumber Company, Nenana; Alaska Birch Works, 

Fairbanks; Regal Enterprises, Copper Center; Alaska Fibre, Petersburg; Alaska 

Wood Moulding, Anchorage; J&H Enterprises;, North Pole; Husky Lumber, Nikisi; 

Nelson Enterprises, Chuathbaluk; Thorne Bay Wood Products, Thorne Bay; Logging 

& Milling Associates, Delta Junction; Pacific Log & Lumber, Ketchikan). 

With zero funding proposed in FY 2005 for this program, the Administration is 

sending a message to Congress that assistance to small forest-dependent communities is not a priority. In this day of declining timber sales and increased litigation 

regarding sustainable forestry industries, most especially on the Tongass National 

Forest, I question how the Forest Service is going to assist the communities that 

survived for many years utilizing the fiber that seems to be no longer available for 

their economies. We owe it to these communities to help them diversify their economies and support them in maintaining healthy forests, healthy lands along with a 

strong economic base. 

Another program of importance to my state is the Federal Land Enhancement 

Program (FLEP), which, although funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation, is managed by the Forest Service. I know that our Alaska State Forest Service 

depends greatly on this cost-share program to assist landowners in Alaska implement a variety of on-the-ground forest land enhancement practices. The work on private forested lands from this program in my state has included reforestation after 

beetle kill and forest thinning for fuel load reduction on the Kenai. I am particularly 

concerned about the current proposed use of funds for this program by the Forest 

Service in both FY 2004 and 2005. It appears that there is ample funding to implement this program in both 2004 and 2005, but the Administration is requesting to 

‘‘reprogram’’ the available dollars to more ‘‘high priority programs’’, leaving no 

money targeted for this state program. 

Currently, a total of 478 private landowners, along with 19 Alaska Native Corporations are eligible for FLEP funds for wildfire fuels reduction and timber stand 

improvements. Without funding, eligible Alaskan landowners have no opportunity 

to make needed forest health improvements on their lands. 

Another concern that I have is that this Administration most recently supported 

the bi-partisan effort of this Congress in passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act of 2003. The FY 2005 budget requests funding of $33 million for Title I only 

(Federal lands fuels reduction work). I will want to ask our witnesses why the Administration is not requesting funding for the remaining titles of this new law. Of 

particular interest in my State of Alaska is the use of biomass technologies and research, as found under Title II of this new law. There is no funding for this title 

in the President’s FY 2005 Request. 

In another area, the Forest Service is continually playing ‘‘catch-up’’ with revising 

outdated forest plans. With a proposed $10.9 million reduction in Land Management 

Planning from the FY 2004 level of $70 million, I question how the agency proposes 

to keep its 126 forest plans around the nation timely. Clearly, with outdated forest 

plans being utilized by this agency, the chance for additional lawsuits grows exponentially. 

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address these and other important forestry issues with our guests today.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. Your comments will be in the 

record. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Secretary, obviously we are all faced with 

a budget problem this year in terms of the deficit and so on. As 

we said, yours is down by half of one percent. But you have, and 

I appreciate this, listed six priorities and certainly that is where it 

20

ought to be. Four of those six have reductions. Now, if those are 

your priorities how do you explain having your priorities be in the 

category of reduced spending? 

Mr. REY. Well, I think part of that goes to how we measure reductions. When we compare budgets between years, we have been 

backing out congressional earmarks, because we put together a 

programmatic budget and then the Congress adjusts that budget in 

the way the founders envisioned, and many of those adjustments 

involve earmarks that are not programmatic in nature. So if you 

back out the earmarks, I do not think you will find those programs 

are all reduced. 

Additionally, some of those programs involve not just the Forest 

Service’s effort, but the efforts of other cooperating agencies like 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service. For example, invasive 

species is one of our priorities. One of our budget initiatives for the 

Forest Service this year is a $10 million emerging pathogen fund. 

We are beginning to look at invasives somewhat like we look at 

forest fires, which is that if you can move quickly and control or 

eradicate a pathogen upon its introduction it is a lot cheaper than 

trying to deal with it after it has already spread to several thousand or tens of thousands of acres. So our emerging pathogen fund 

is analogous to trying to attack forest fires at initial attack and 

eliminate the problem before it spreads and becomes more expensive. 

But beyond the Forest Service’s efforts, the other agency that I 

oversee in the Department of Agriculture spends a considerable 

amount of money through farm bill programs dealing with invasive 

species on an annual basis. Most of that is on private land. Not all 

of it is. It is on multi-ownerships. 

I think it is a function of how you look at those numbers. In our 

judgment, we are holding those priority programs even or giving 

them slight increases compared to the program request that we 

submitted last year backing out congressional earmarks. If you add 

congressional earmarks, you can come to a different conclusion. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, they are interesting. As you point out, 

one is reducing catastrophic wildfire risk. That happens to be a 

very high priority for most everyone. Providing outdoor recreation 

opportunities is another that you had on your list. To help energy 

resource needs; here is one that you are responsible for because 

those permits are on forest lands and there has been a great delay 

in issuing some of those permits. So I hope that we can continue 

to have those as priorities. Chief, the budget includes a $2.5 million reduction in range management. We talked last year about the difficulty of getting NEPA 

done for grazing permits. How many grazing permits are there, are 

they behind, and what is this reduction going to mean to preparing 

for rangeland management? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I cannot give you the exact number, but I can 

follow up later and give the exact number of permits. We are behind in terms of completing the NEPA for range permits. We have 

just completed a few months ago or just a couple weeks ago actually a change in our handbook for doing NEPA on range permits 

and reissuance of range permits that we believe will help streamline the process, make it go faster, that will work better for both 

21

the Forest Service as well as the grazing permittees. It is more focused on outcome rather than the specific numbers that we have 

been in the past. I think that our permittees will find that it is 

easier for them to work with. I think that our folks on the ground 

will find that, following the new process, that they will be able to 

get through the NEPA quicker. 

Of course, one of our objectives is to be able to modernize some 

of our processes so that we are not spending all of our time doing 

the paperwork. About 36 percent of the NEPA has been completed, 

36 percent of the allotments, and we have 6,900 allotments, is the 

number that we have currently. 

Senator THOMAS. I see, thank you. 

Senator Feinstein, I will ask Senator Bingaman to go and then 

we will have your opening statement. 

Do you have questions, sir? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes, thank you very much. 

Let me ask a couple of parochial questions first. One of the problems we have here in Congress and I think in all of Washington 

is that we are so busy killing alligators we do not have time to 

drain the swamp, as the saying goes. In my home town the Forest 

Service has a fire cache which provides supplies for fire suppression efforts in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma. This is 

Silver City, New Mexico, I am speaking about. 

The facilities there are old storage sheds, trailers, sheet metal 

garages, sort of patched together, and there is a lot of effort expended each year in moving supplies from one shed to another so 

as to get it all done. What they have needed for a long period is 

a warehouse that is large enough to keep the supplies they need. 

I do not see anything to indicate that this is something that is ever 

going to be built by the Forest Service. 

Do you know anything about this or is this something you could 

look into, Chief Bosworth? I went out and visited them a year or 

so ago and was struck by the inadequacy of the facilities they have 

there. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I will be happy to look into it. I am not aware 

specifically of the conditions. I do know it is not in the ’05 budget. 

I am not sure where it is in terms of the priorities compared to 

those kind of fire cache facilities around the rest of the country. 

But I will certainly look into it and see whether there is something 

we can do. 

Senator BINGAMAN. I would appreciate it if you could get back to 

me on that. I would sure appreciate it. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I will do that. 

Senator BINGAMAN. One other issue that Senator Domenici and 

I have both taken a lot of interest in is the Vallez Caldera National 

Preserve. I notice that the administration consistently requests a 

million dollars as the amount needed. I think this year the request 

was $992,000 to accomplish the purposes and goals of the Forest 

Service in that regard. That was a figure that was put in in the 

first year that this thing was enacted because we just did not 

know. We just had to put a figure in. 

Unfortunately, there has never been an effort, at least I am not 

aware of it, to go back and look at what is the actual cost that 

ought to be covered here. Do you know if there is anything being 

22

done on that? Does this $992,000 reflect what you really think is 

needed for that effort? 

Mr. REY. Senator, I think the $992,000 is basically a flat budget 

response in the absence of analysis that probably needs to be done. 

Senator Domenici and the Chief and I talked about this yesterday 

and we observed that we typically budget a million, you and Senator Domenici typically add some numbers to it, and we move on. 

One of the original intents in the authorizing legislation was that 

at some point in the future the trust that administers the Vallez 

Caldera would be self-sustaining. I do not think we had any idea 

at the time how long it would take to get to that point or what the 

appropriate level of Federal support in the interim should be. But 

I think now that the Vallez Caldera has been authorized for I believe 5 years—I think we are approaching the fifth anniversary—

it probably marks a pretty good time to take stock and evaluate for 

either 2005 as we move forward in this appropriations process or, 

if that is too early, then in our 2006 budget request, not only what 

the right Federal request should be for the next year, 2006, but 

what the out year support should be. 

What I committed to Senator Domenici is we would take a look 

at that, and I would make the same commitment to you as well. 

Senator BINGAMAN. All right, that will be a big help. I appreciate 

hearing that. 

You have a proposal, Mr. Rey, for revising the National Forest 

Management Act regulations. You got a lot of comments back, a lot 

of public comments, a lot of comments from members of Congress, 

urging you to withdraw or substantially alter those proposed 

NFMA regulations. Could you give me the status on that effort and 

whether or not there is going to be some decision to withdraw or 

modify those regulations or what is going to happen? 

Mr. REY. We have completed the analysis of the comments, 

which as you noted were substantial on all sides, and are significantly modifying the regulations. We are reaching the close of that 

effort and it is my expectation that within the next month or so we 

should have a new set of regulations to send out for people to look 

at. 

We have not made a decision whether those will be final regulations or a reproposal. That will be a decision that we will make 

within the next couple of weeks. If they are a reproposal, then we 

will accept another round of comments. If they are final regulations, then the administrative appeals process will trigger and we 

will continue to hear public comments on them. 

I do not think withdrawing the regulations or simply continuing 

to operate under the 1982 regulations is a viable alternative, for 

two reasons. First, those regulations are now 22 years old and a 

lot has changed in 22 years. Secondly, those regulations governed 

the appropriate processes to use to develop the first generation of 

forest plans and as such they were much more detailed and they 

required the agencies to do a lot of things that arguably you should 

not have to do, at least in all instances, to revise or amend an existing plan. 

So it will be a sporting discussion. I imagine we will satisfy some 

of the critics of the proposed rule, but I am quite confident we will 

23

not satisfy all of them. I will assure you that your staff will be 

briefed before we go public with a decision. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you. 

I have a few other questions. I will wait for a second round. 

Senator THOMAS. We will have a sporting discussion. I think that 

sounds good. 

Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, gentlemen. Obviously, I am very pleased that the 

healthy forests bill is now law and being carried out. But what I 

am concerned about is the funding in the budget to carry out the 

health forests bill. As you know, we authorized $760 million in hazardous fuels reduction. That is far more than what is in the budget. The budget purports to provide $760 million for hazardous fuels 

reduction, but it is only by relabeling existing programs that it 

achieves that amount. 

I would like to indicate two concerns. The budget as I understand 

it significantly cuts fire-related assistance to States and communities, by as much as 42 percent. It goes from $132 million to $77 

million. That is a dramatic cut. I am hearing from the fire safety 

councils all throughout the State with real concern. 

Let me ask this question if I might. Most of the supposed increase, with the exception of an additional $30 million for fuel reduction, appears to be made up by shifting funding from other existing programs, such as State and private forestry, fire science, 

and timber. How much of the $760 million do you consider to be 

new money? 

Mr. REY. The $760 million, first of all, is a combined Department 

of Agriculture-Department of the Interior total, so I want to make 

sure we are clear on that. Of that $760 million, somewhere between $80 and $100 million of it is in our judgment new money. 

Now, we are sensitive to the suggestion that we are merely——

Senator FEINSTEIN. How much in your budget would you consider new money? 

Mr. REY. About half of that, about $40 million. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. $40 million? 

Mr. REY. Right. And about the same or a little more for Interior. 

We are sensitive to the suggestion that we are merely relabeling 

things and that is not quite accurate. But let me express why we 

are constructing the budget this way. When the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act passed, we had a new piece of legislation with new 

authorities and a new authorization level. What we thought would 

be most helpful to do would be to organize our budget, both at the 

Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, in 

a crosscut that shows how much money we are devoting to the activities that were described in the authorization language of title 

I of the bill, which is where the $760 million authorization is. We 

have money that we will appropriate or request to be appropriated 

against the other titles as well, but most of the attention was on 

title I and the proposition that for the activities described in secVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
24

tion 108 of the bill that the authorization level that was desired 

was $760 million. 

In reconfiguring the budget that way, what we included is not 

only the hazardous fuels reduction account, which is a discrete account in both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service’s budget, but also other program areas that were going to fund 

activities that were conducted that would have hazardous fuels reduction objectives. 

So for instance, when we say that we are going to treat 2.2 million acres of land in this 2005 budget request and reduce the fuel 

loads to bring the condition class down, what we mean is 1.6 million acres of that will be treated with the hazardous fuels reduction 

account and .6 million will be treated with money from some of the 

other accounts—vegetation management, watershed, timber, 

etcetera. 

Some of those accounts experienced slight increases as well to do 

this work that in our judgment is new money. In some of those accounts, we reprogram more of the work that would otherwise be 

done under the account to do this work to address the Congressional priority. 

It is fairly complicated. It is not merely a case of relabeling, but 

I think a fair read of this $760 million is that, depending on how 

you want to split the hairs, there is between $80 and $100 million 

of new money, and what we are trying to do is configure this budget so that we can see what we are devoting to the authorization 

that you said was important when together we worked on this legislation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If I might just follow up, Congressman Jerry 

Lewis and I obtained $240 million in hazardous fuels reduction 

funding for Federal and private lands in southern California 

through the 2003 supplemental and the 2004 omnibus and Interior 

appropriations bill. I do not know whether you are taking some of 

that money or not. 

Mr. REY. No. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are not? 

Mr. REY. That is not included in any of this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My question then for you, that $240 million 

is intact? 

Mr. REY. That is correct. But let me make one clarification. I understood the $240 million to include both fuels treatment work and 

post-fire rehabilitation work, so there are two functions that that 

is paying for. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So in other words, you are going to take the 

rehabilitation money out of that? 

Mr. REY. I think $150 million of it was scheduled for rehabilitation and that is what we are spending it on, and I think the balance was fuels reduction and we are going to spend it as you told 

us to. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is good. 

In your assessment—and I notice that in the chart you have distributed, one of the charts has to do with the Arrowhead and Big 

Bear areas still remaining of major concern, and your other charts 

show that same area in jeopardy for another forest fire. Do you beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
25

lieve the money is adequate there and that we can get it used fast 

enough to make a difference this next season? 

Mr. REY. I believe what you have given us for this season is 

probably as much as we can use. It is not adequate over the next 

3 or 4 years to deal with the immensity of the problem. That will 

be an ongoing problem that we will have to work with you to try 

to continue to address. 

But I think the resources that we have as a result of the work 

that you and Congressman Lewis did in the supplemental is about 

as much as we can responsibly use during 2004 and I think what 

we will have to do, Senator, is sit down with you as the summer 

unfolds to see what 2005 looks like. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Quick, quick, quick, Mr. Chairman. 

Would you estimate the dead trees in that area from bark beetle 

to still be a half a million acres? 

Mr. REY. Yes. There was very little reduction of that acreage as 

a consequence of the fires because we were able to stop the fire before it got too deeply into the bug-kill area. So what little was 

burned has probably been replaced by increasing spread of the infestation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

As I indicated in my short opening, the concerns that I have are 

in the State and private forestry area. Why has the Forest Service 

taken this area and basically said this is not as important to the 

agency any more? We are seeing a reduction here. What is the reasoning behind that? 

Mr. REY. Well, I do not think we have said that it is not important to the agency. We have made some fairly tough choices, given 

the kind of budget environment that we are operating in. 

With regard to the—let me just go to some of the specific concerns that you raised. With regard to the economic action program, 

what we have proposed there is identical to what we have proposed 

I think the last 2 years. The economic action program funds have 

been 100 percent earmarked over the last couple of cycles. It is my 

expectation that you will continue to put money in there and it will 

continue to be 100 percent earmarked. 

But from a programmatic standpoint, what we have been trying 

to establish is that those kinds of support dollars are now being 

provided in a more organized way and at a greater level of funding 

through the Department of Agriculture’s rural development program with mandatory funds that are provided through the farm 

bill. 

For instance, a couple of your constituents, Senator Murkowski, 

and I have talked about the need to get some assistance to do a 

feasibility or due diligence study for new manufacturing facilities 

in Haines and Seward. Of course, one option would be to provide 

money for that under the economic action program account. 

But another option that currently exists is that our rural development program just went out with a request for proposals for a 

value-added economic assistance grants program. So what I have 

tried to do is to get your folks in touch with our State rural develVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
26

opment director because he is basically sitting on a pot of money 

that is designed for that purpose in a competitive grant program. 

I think that, given their description of what they want to do, there 

is every reason to believe that they will be successful in acquiring 

a value-added economic development grant which will provide them 

the money they need for the feasibility studies for those two mills. 

The economic assistance program is one that we have zeroed before. It is an area that is important, but we think is being dealt 

with better by an existing, another existing program within USDA 

that, frankly, has more money to spend on it in any event. 

With regard to the forest landowner incentive program, here 

again we have had to make some tough choices about where to 

focus the assistance that we provide to the State forestry agencies 

and to private forestry in each of the States. What the Chief has 

indicated and what the State foresters have agreed is that one of 

the principal threats to private forest landownership is fragmentation and development. We have increased the forest legacy program, which is the Federal program that provides the States assistance to buy development easements, significantly. That was one of 

the largest budget increases in this budget proposal. 

In a sense, I guess I would maintain that we are trying to address what the States have told us is the number one priority. 

Now, perhaps one option is if a State says, well, maybe that is the 

number one priority throughout the country—Alaska may be a 

pretty good example of this—but it is not a number one priority in 

Alaska, there is other things we could do, then maybe there is a 

way to adjust between those accounts. 

But the State and private forestry program, taking aside the reorganization of some of the program accounts, has not been diminished that dramatically in this budget request. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The State fire assistance program, apparently there is a decrease there, a difference between 2004 and 

2005, it looks like a difference of 16,818. We are certainly looking 

at this particular budget component very critically as we assess the 

work being done down on the Kenai Peninsula. Obviously, we 

would like to know that we are going to have sufficient funding to 

deal with the issue down there. Do you believe that this is sufficient to help us on the Kenai? 

Mr. REY. Well, I think the State fire assistance program is one 

where a little closer discussion may be helpful among the members 

of the committee. In 2000 and in 2001, as a consequence of the development of the national fire plan and Senator Domenici’s Happy 

Forests Initiative, fire suppression activities for both Federal and 

State agencies were increased dramatically, and in those increases 

we expended a lot of money in refurbishing the capital infrastructure for our firefighting effort, buying new engines, taking on new 

crews, providing money to the States to do those same capital acquisitions. 

You do not need to buy a new fire engine every year. It is a periodic thing. So as we have sort of reduced our capital expenditures 

at the Federal level, so have we reduced the State firefighting assistance account, reflecting the same proposition, that arguably the 

States should not be buying new fire engines every year. 

27

I appreciate the fact that not every State is in exactly the same 

situation. So there is an area where maybe more specific information as this budget goes forward could help us adjust among these 

accounts to a little more accurately reflect an individual State or 

State’s needs. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We would like to work with you on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

A couple quick ones. Chief, you mentioned the fee demo project. 

We of course are moving forward on that with regard to parks, intend to have a hearing. We have received a good deal of comment 

from people, adverse comment generally, from having to pay to go 

on forests. I do not know what your plan is, but at least there 

ought to be some identification of the kinds of facilities if you are 

talking about fee. What is your view on that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, first, the polling that we have done, I guess 

would be the right word, the questionnaires that we have sent out, 

generally for us have shown that about 85 percent of the people 

that we have asked support the user fee. Now, there is also, I will 

agree that there are some places where we have done it through 

the fee demo program where there has been a lot of pushback, and 

we believe we have made corrections and adjustments in our program based upon some of the adverse comments that we have gotten from people as we have learned during the life of the fee demo 

how to apply it better and have public support for it. 

The kinds of places that we generally use—there are lots of ways 

that we use the money that we get. We try to put the money back 

to where it was collected, the bulk of the money back to where it 

was collected. Some of it goes to improving national facilities, some 

of it goes to increased law enforcement presence when that is what 

people have told us they would like to have. 

Some of it has gone toward fixing up trailhead facilities, putting 

in places for people with pack stock to be able to unload their pack 

stock more effectively and easier. Those kinds of facilities have 

been improved. Then there is places where we have water-based 

recreation where we have been able to do a better job of providing 

ramps for people to unload boats. 

Senator THOMAS. My question is are you going to be able to identify those places where there is some sort of facility that people can 

feel comfortable about paying for——

Mr. BOSWORTH. We can do that. 

Senator THOMAS [continuing]. As opposed to just going. But you 

have not. I have asked for that and I have not gotten any response. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We will—I will respond to that. I will get that 

information for you. 

Mr. REY. What we have given you, Senator, is criteria that would 

be conducive to evaluating what should be——

Senator THOMAS. I have not seen that. 

Mr. REY. That we transmitted to your staff a while back, but we 

will get you another copy. 

Senator THOMAS. There are some more here, so I will stop with 

that. 

Senator Bingaman. 

Senator Wyden. 

28

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

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman. 

Gentlemen, I have looked at the budget and as one who spent an 

enormous amount of time, like many on this committee, trying to 

get this bill passed, I am just profoundly disappointed by the budget request. It seems to me that you are taking the health out of 

the healthy forest program. I mean, at a minimum, at a minimum 

you are hundreds of millions of dollars short of what the Congress 

authorized in the bipartisan compromise. We asked for $760 million of new money for these various kinds of initiatives and as far as I can tell there is at most $100 million 

of new money. Now, this is a breach of what the Congress intended 

on a bipartisan basis in terms of getting this work done. As all of 

you know, the House authorized no new money. I would not have 

been on the floor for the entire time this debate came up unless 

there was a chance to get a bipartisan agreement that ensured that 

there would be the new dollars for these hazardous fuels reduction 

programs. 

So my question—I guess I will start with you, Chief—is how in 

the world are you going to get these projects, the hazardous fuels 

reduction projects, done with well over $600 million less than the 

Congress authorized? 

Mr. REY. Inasmuch as I was the one who worked with you on the 

bill, perhaps I should take that and save a little time. 

Senator WYDEN. I am interested in that, Mr. Rey, and I always 

respect your views. But I want to start from a policy standpoint 

with the Chief describing how these projects are going to get done, 

because I think that there is going to be enormous frustration out 

in rural America, which is expecting these new funds to get the important work done, and you all are basically doing a bait and 

switch. We authorized this new money and it has not been there. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would be happy to answer that and tell you 

how we are going to get the job done. 

Senator WYDEN. Fine. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. First, through the healthy forest initiative, by 

coming up with new processes, new tools, that allow us to be able 

to spend more dollars on the ground, less dollars going through 

process and paperwork, categorical exclusions. We have come up 

with some counterpart regulations so we can work more effectively 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

There are a number of things we are doing with stewardship contracting authority that you gave us, in implementing stewardship 

contracting authority, that will allow us to get more work done on 

the ground. Plus we are doing a number of projects where we are 

focusing some of our other kinds of work that in the past may have 

not been done in, say, condition class 3, which is the high, the bad 

areas in terms of fuels. We are going to focus some of the jobs, like 

habitat improvement for certain wildlife species, we would like to 

focus more of that in the condition class 3 area, thereby converting 

that to condition class 1. 

In fact, I have—I can show you an example of one in Oregon that 

is the Dry Creek pre-commercial thin, that work was done—it was 

29

on Umpqua National Forest. Work was done with some RAC dollars and some vegetative improvement dollars, not hazardous fuels 

dollars or fuel reduction dollars, and yet, as you can see in the picture there, there was some piling was done. The area looks different. It may not look significantly different in the picture, but you 

can see where the fuels has been reduced using dollars other than 

fuels management dollars in order to accomplish that. 

So we have that opportunity to do increased work with a number 

of other kinds of projects, accomplishing more than just one thing 

at a time, but multiple benefits, one of those benefits being fuels 

reduction. 

Mr. REY. I think that what we have committed to doing in the 

2004 budget with the Department of the Interior is treating a 

grand total of four million acres. Now, let us review the bidding. 

In fiscal year 2000 the two agencies, the two Departments, together 

treated two million acres. So we will be doubling that. We will be 

continuing that rate of progress and perhaps exceeding it on to 

2005, and our goal is over the next couple of years to double that 

again to where we are treating eight to nine million acres a year. 

If we can get to that next phase jump, then we will be on a path 

to address this problem in 8 to 10 years, which is what we have 

always said will be the time frame that is needed to address it. 

This is not a problem that we got into overnight; it is not a problem 

that we are going to get out of overnight. 

But insofar as the funding is concerned, it pains me to disagree 

with you, Senator Wyden, but our occasional disagreements make 

our general agreement that much more dear. There was never anything in this authorization that talked about $760 million of new 

money. It says: ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated $760 million for each fiscal year to carry out: one, activities authorized by 

this title; and two, other hazardous fuel reduction activities of the 

Secretary, including making grants to States, local governments, 

Indian tribes, and other eligible recipients for activities authorized 

by law.’’

What we have tried to do, as I was explaining earlier to Senator 

Feinstein, is reorganize our budget with the Department of the Interior to show you a crosscut of the funds that are devoted to the 

activities described in this authorization. Not all $760 million of it 

is new money, that we would acknowledge. Roughly $80 to $100 

million of it is new money. We think that is, A, good progress towards the goal in acres treated that I have described; and B, 

squares favorably in total with the authorization language as it is 

written. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up and I just 

want to make one last point. 

Virtually all the things that the Chief discussed are projects that 

I support. I would just say, gentlemen, I think it is a fantasy to 

say that we are going to get anything close to the amount of work 

Congress foresaw in this bipartisan legislation accomplished under 

your budget. I do take exception with Mr. Rey’s views. Everybody 

in the U.S. Senate thought this was new money that was going to 

go to these efforts, and I think it is particularly exasperating to see 

that coupled with the cuts in the money that would go to the States 

and localities for doing the cooperative programs. 

30

We are continuing the kind of budgetary shell game in my view 

that has made business as usual in the forestry area so frustrating 

to communities across this country. I just want it understood, Mr. 

Chairman and colleagues, that I am going to do everything I can 

to try to get back to the kind of bipartisan focus that we had when 

we passed this historic legislation and that unfortunately this 

budget moves away from. 

I thank you for the extra time. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Akaka. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR

FROM HAWAII 

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

I want to add my welcome to the witnesses. Mr. Secretary, good 

to have you back in this room. 

Mr. REY. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Chief, good to have you here. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would like to submit 

for the record. 

Senator THOMAS. We will include it in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing today. I would like to add 

my welcome to the witnesses. It is a pleasure to see you both again. 

In addition to managing approximately 192 million acres of national forests and 

grasslands across the country, the Forest Service provides research, technical assistance, and cooperative programs with landowners to restore and maintain private 

forests. The Forest Service’s contributions are very important for us in Hawaii. The 

State of Hawaii has forests that range from tropical rainforests to arid scrub, covering 41 percent of the State’s total land area. 

We greatly appreciate the Forest Service’s work on invasive species, tropical forestry, and the Forest Legacy Program, which have been beneficial in maintaining 

and restoring Hawaii’s native forest lands. ‘The State has an outstanding state forestry program and recently completed the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Action 

Plan and designated last year, 2003, as the ‘‘Year of the Hawaiian Forest.’’

I realize that hard choices have to be made about programs and priorities. The 

Administration’s budget request reflects priorities of tax cuts and the war against 

terrorism, which force difficult choices by discretionary spending agencies such as 

the Forest Service. I note that after inflation is taken into account, your budget request is down slightly from the FY 2004 enacted level. 

There are some bright spots in the budget request that I would like to mention. 

In State and Private Forestry, I am pleased to see the increase in the Forest Legacy 

program this year, but disheartened to see offsetting decreases in programs like 

Urban and Community Forestry and State Fire Assistance. I am pleased to see a 

funding increase for the Institute of Pacific Island Forestry for research on invasive 

weeds and ecosystem restoration. 

Overall, it is good to see that you are increasing your spending to understand and 

control invasive species. There is a S10 million increase in the Forest and Rangeland Research line item for rapid response to new introductions of invasive pests 

or pathogens. I have some specific questions about this when we get to the questions. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I will ask my questions when we get to the appropriate point in the hearing.

Senator AKAKA. I have some questions on invasive species and 

healthy forests. 

Senator THOMAS. Very well. Go right ahead, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. May I proceed with my questions? 

Senator THOMAS. Certainly. 

31

Senator AKAKA. My questions are for either you, Mr. Secretary, 

or the Chief. I am glad to see a commendable increase of $7.3 million in funding for invasive species control methods in Forest and 

Rangeland Research. This is an ongoing battle for many States, especially mine, and an important issue for the overall health of our 

forests and communities. 

The appropriation for Forest and Rangeland Research indicates 

that the invasive species programs will expand research on controls 

for newly arrived insects and pathogens. The budget document also 

indicates that new biological controls for established invasive 

weeds will increase, along with methods to restore the sites once 

the invasive species is controlled. 

As you know, the State of Hawaii is plagued by invasive weeds 

such as miconia and fountain grass. These and other invasives 

have been changing the hydrology of tropical forests by depleting 

the groundwater supply, preventing native plant growth, and leading to erosion. The erosion increases sedimentation in surface waters and smothers coral reefs. 

My question is, with regard to Hawaii it is unclear as to what 

level of funding my State can look forward to for control of invasive 

weeds and insects. The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry will 

have an increase, but is this the only invasives effort by the Forest 

Service that will affect Hawaii’s forests? To what specific pests, 

species, or pathogens will the funding be dedicated and how will 

the research help with Hawaii’s invasive problems? Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. REY. Senator, the support provided to the Institute of Pacific 

Island Forestry is probably the largest source of support, primarily 

on research related to invasives, that will come out of the Forest 

Service budget. But as you know, there are no national forest lands 

in Hawaii. Most of the land is non-federal ownership. The program 

that does the most in dealing with invasives in Hawaii is the environmental quality incentive program administered by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, which is the other agency I oversee. 

In fiscal year 2003, for instance, we sent a little over $2.1 million 

of environmental quality incentive program money to Hawaii for 

work on private lands. I am told that much of that was used to 

deal with invasives, the spread of invasives on private land, since 

that is a significant problem in Hawaii. 

Overall in that program account, I think the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 

million in fiscal year 2003. I can give you overall budget numbers 

for that account for 2004 and 2005. I cannot today tell you how it 

is broken among States and within Hawaii how much of what Hawaii’s allocation is is going to invasives as opposed to some other 

private land problem. But I can get with you as those numbers are 

developed and get them to you. 

Senator AKAKA. Would you want to make any comment, Chief? 

Otherwise, fine. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Just to add to that one thing. The President’s 

proposal, budget proposal, has $2 million for the emergency pest 

and pathogen program and of course that covers the whole country. 

But the critical thing there is that as we have new species pop up 

32

we need to be able to respond to those quickly, both with research 

as well as with control measures. 

The number one thing we can do with invasives, the most important thing, is prevention of new outbreaks, stopping them quickly. 

The emerging pest and pathogen program would help a lot with 

that. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I want to commend the Forest Service for 

its participation in the interagency budget crosscut on invasive species and its work with the National Invasive Species Council. However, I am disheartened to note that the overall funding for 

invasive species-related projects has decreased since fiscal year 

2003 from $88.3 million to the present budget request of $67.9 million. 

I am interested in one change in particular. I see that a $10 million request has been added to the Emerging Pest and Pathogens 

Fund in State and Private Forestry. The budget request mentions 

several non-native species or pathogens that would be addressed by 

this funding, such as emerald ash borer and sudden oak death; but 

none of these are of immediate concern in Hawaii. 

I understand that you have touched on this earlier, but I would 

like to know the rationale behind these choices. Were there specific 

States in mind when this request was being calculated? Does this 

mean less funding to combat other varieties of invasive species? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. That list that is in there, we are not limited to 

that list. That is just a list of some of those that we are having particular difficulty with right now that we are getting new outbreaks 

that we are aware of. The situation is that we could easily get a 

new outbreak of some pest or pathogen that we never heard of or 

have never seen before, and that is part of the purpose of the 

emerging pest and pathogen program, would be to then all of a 

sudden switch some dollars to that and get after it very quickly. 

The list that was shown was the list of some that we do not 

about, that we are having problems with right now. But we are not 

limited to that. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Senator Bingaman. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you. 

Let me just ask about a couple of other issues. Mr. Rey, you were 

referring on this issue of how do we get away from these transfers 

of funds from one account to another to fight fires, and you had one 

idea that I think you put forward that you might be supportive of 

would be establishing a government-wide contingency fund. 

As you undoubtedly know, I offered an amendment last year to 

the healthy forests bill where I was suggesting that we provide authority to the Forest Service to go to Treasury and borrow money 

as it is needed. The administration opposed that. Most members of 

the Senate opposed that. It was something which was not in the 

budget. Nobody thought that it was a good idea. 

How would your government-wide contingency fund work and is 

this something you would actually put money into when the budget 

comes up to us next year? 

Mr. REY. Probably the best thing for me to do, since my memory 

is less acute than it was years ago, is to get you the administraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
33

tion’s proposal from fiscal year 2004’s budget request. But as I recall how the account would work—and I will ask our Budget Director to spell me here if I get it wrong—is that what we requested 

in our budget request was the establishment of a government-wide 

contingency account that would be available not only to the Forest 

Service but FEMA and other agencies who typically utilize emergency authorities and spend money to deal with emergency situations, and that some amount of money for that purpose would be 

added into the budget resolution as a contingency and then carried 

forward in the budget resolution so that it would available for the 

appropriations committees to thereafter draw from in addressing 

these emergencies. 

Is that about how it works? 

Mr. KASHDAN. That is essentially correct, Senator. 

Senator BINGAMAN. That was in the 2004 budget that you sent 

up and not in this year’s budget? 

Mr. KASHDAN. It was in the 2003 and the 2004 budget. It is not 

contained in this budget. 

Senator BINGAMAN. How much money were you asking to go into 

that account? 

Mr. KASHDAN. My recollection is at least $4 billion in 2003. I do 

not recall what the amount was for 2004. But again, that was a 

government-wide amount. 

Senator BINGAMAN. But you would still support that kind of a 

proposal? If we were to put it together and offer it, we could get 

administration support for it? 

Mr. REY. I have not had any indication that there has been any 

change in that view. I think we figured that there was no point in 

taking the third strike inasmuch as it had been offered twice and 

not generally well received. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, I may follow up with you on that, because I do think the fact that this is not on the front page of the 

morning newspaper does not mean it is not going to come back to 

bite us as we get into the fire season, and I would like to see us 

try to get ahead of it. 

The one other issue I wanted to ask about is this bark beetle kill 

that we have seen all through the west; at least in my part of the 

country, in the Southwest, particularly in northern New Mexico. In 

my lifetime and I think since we have been keeping records, the 

number of trees, the percentage of the pinon trees, that have died, 

and many of the pines as well, is unprecedented. 

Is there any plan by the Forest Service to deal with that problem 

at this stage? Is it too soon to know the extent of the problem, or 

is it just subsumed under a more general category of these are 

areas we need to rehabilitate? What is the situation there? 

Mr. REY. Given the magnitude of these epidemics at this point, 

we obviously do not look at this as an emerging pest problem. We 

are well beyond looking at this as something we can eradicate. So 

we are looking at these pandemics as part and parcel of the areas 

that we have to treat to reduce fire risk, and we will likely not 

treat all 100 percent of the areas that are infested in any location 

where we are currently suffering infestations. Rather, we will look 

at strategic treatments to create defensible barriers to the spread 

of fire and the further spread of the insects where that is possible. 

34

So we look at it as a component of the healthy forest challenge 

that we face, but at least in areas where we have already reached 

pandemic or epidemic proportions not something that we are going 

to be able to eradicate, given the size of the epidemic. 

Now, there still are parts of the country where we are dealing 

with initial infestations and there our strategy is different, to get 

in, get it cut down quickly, and catch it before it spreads, both for 

pine beetle as well as for other pathogens. 

Senator BINGAMAN. My time has expired there, but I may follow 

up with you and urge that we try to do some strategic planning 

with regard to this, because to my mind this is not just sort of an 

add-on to another plan that we already have in place. This is a 

900-pound gorilla if there ever was one, as far as the ability to 

manage the forests in the part of the country that I am from. 

Mr. REY. I do not mean to suggest it is an add-on. It is an element of a larger problem, and there is a unique aspect to this in 

that we are not just trying to create defensible spaces to stop the 

spread of the catastrophic fire; we are also looking at what our opportunities are to slow or stop the spread of the epidemic. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. A couple of just quick ones. In the spring of 

1993, Chief, I think you predicted there would be seven forest 

plans by the end of 2003, 17 by the end of 2004. It seems like there 

has only been 17 completed since 1993. How many plans do you 

plan to get continued? That seems to be one of the things that goes 

on forever in the States, are these forest plans. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I can get you the number, the listing of completed plans as well as what our schedule for out years is. One of 

the reasons that we are proposing to revise the forest planning 

rule, the NFMA rule, is so that we can get forest plans done in a 

reasonable period of time. Under our existing processes, it has been 

taking 8, 9, 10 years to complete a 15-year forest plan, which just 

does not make any sense. 

So my belief is that we have to have processes where we can get 

a forest plan done in a couple of years, get it revised. If we are 

going to engage the community and the public in developing these 

plans, you have to have a process that will do it in a reasonable 

period of time or we will lose people. 

I would be happy to submit a full schedule of what has been completed and what we plan on doing in each fiscal year from now on 

out. 

Senator THOMAS. Have you made progress in doing it more 

quickly or not? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. Actually, we have not completed our new 

planning rule yet, but even under our old planning rule we are getting the focus on reducing the length of time and I think we are 

picking it up a little bit. But we need to make significant improvements over what we are right now. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Secretary, you recommended $35 million in 

the forest legacy program. Which is more important to you, dealing 

with the health disaster or acquiring additional lands and conservation easements? Could 35 bucks maybe, $35 million, be better 

used? 

35

Mr. REY. I am not sure it is an either/or proposition in the case 

of acquiring easements at least. One of the things that is complicating a lot of our land management and firefighting efforts is the 

fragmentation of landscapes and the subdivision of privately owned 

forest and ranch lands and the growth of the wildland-urban interface. To the extent that our forest legacy program is slowing the 

growth of the wildland-urban interface by providing an incentive 

for people not to subdivide their land, whether it is forest land as 

far as the forest legacy program is concerned or ranch land as far 

as the Natural Resources Conservation Service grassland reserve 

or farm and forest land protection program is concerned, whichever 

program is involved, if it is slowing the growth of the wildlandurban interface it is assisting our firefighting effort and assisting 

our ability to restore forest health. 

So I am not sure it is an either/or proposition, at least insofar 

as easement acquisition is concerned. Now, some will make the 

case that as far as actual fee title acquisition is concerned, which 

is more expensive, that that really should be a lower priority than 

devoting the effort to deal with the health of existing Federally 

owned lands. I think our budget reflects that. Our land acquisition 

account is significantly lower than it has been in past years and 

most of the acquisitions that are called for in the priority list are 

acquisitions that involve places where the Federal Government or 

the Congress committed to buy out people as new areas were designated, like the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. When that 

legislation passed, the Congress made a commitment to retire from 

willing sellers their land within the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area 

because many of those owners wanted the opportunity to take that 

money and go buy land someplace else that they could manage 

more intensively. 

So that is what our land acquisition is prioritized to do right 

now. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, that is good. I hope as you look at that 

that you use trades and these kinds of things rather than—so that 

you do not have a net gain of land ownership. It seems like there 

is plenty of——

Mr. REY. We are not interested in a net gain, and there is a proposal in our legislative proposals to allow us to begin to convey 

through sales excess assets, not so much land as administrative 

sites. And we would be very eager to talk with you about seeing 

that come to fruition. 

Senator THOMAS. Some of these isolated tracts and so on could 

be traded. 

Senator Akaka, we are about to wind up here, I think. 

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

I want to return to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 

Title V of that act authorizes up to $25 million for the Healthy Forests Reserves Program. This program would help landowners restore forested habitats for rare and endangered species through 

cost-sharing agreements and conservation easements. 

The State of Hawaii has completed the Hawaii Tropical Forest 

Recovery Action Plan, and we have just completed an extensive series of critical habitat designations. Hawaii can easily benefit from 

this program. I do not find a request for title V in the budget docuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
36

ment. Can you provide any details on the status of title V and your 

plans for a request next year? 

Mr. REY. Title V is a title that requires at a minimum guidance 

to our field and we are thinking now perhaps regulations before we 

can implement it. So in the interest of not creating expectations 

that we could not fulfill, we did not line item anything for title V. 

Now, that having been said, some of the projects that we would 

normally fund either under our forest legacy program—or I should 

say, some of the projects that we could fund under our forest legacy 

program and under our forest stewardship accounts, as well as the 

farm and ranch land protection program, the grassland reserve program, the wetlands reserve program, under the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service accounts, could be used to serve two purposes 

and fund projects that qualify under the Healthy Forests Reserve. 

But at least right now, we would like to get, if not regulations, 

at least guidance out to our field so people know how they should 

approach this in an organized fashion before we create an expectation by putting however an amount of money, a line item in the 

2005 account. So you will see more of this from us in 2006. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I would like to continue to work with you 

on this program because it could help, and we look forward to the 

future of the program. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a question that I 

will put in for the record. 

Senator THOMAS. All right, that will be fine. 

Thank you, gentlemen. We will leave the record open for 24 

hours. If people have further questions, we will get them to you. 

We appreciate your work. All of us are very interested in the resource of the national forests and we want to continue to work with 

you to make those things work as best we can. So thank you. 

The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(37)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

VALLES CALDERA

Question 1. I note in your proposed budget that you have recommended a $2.1 

million dollar reduction for the Valles Caldera National Preserve. I know you understand the need to provide sufficient funding for this important project. I think you 

understand that the failure to provide sufficient start up and transitional funding 

now, will doom any effort to have the Preserve ready to take over its full financial 

responsibility when scheduled. Can you tell me why you’ve made the recommendation that you’ve made? 

Answer. The decrease for the Valles Caldera is a result of the agency’s challenge, 

and specifically in the Southwestern Region, to balance all the competing priorities 

and needs the agency faces. To increase the FY 2005 President’s Budget request for 

the Valles Caldera would result in impacts to the other national forests. Below is 

a table showing the funding history for the Valles Caldera.

VALLES CALDERA FUNDING HISTORY 

Fiscal year President’s 

budget Enacted 

2001 ................................................................................... $0 $988,000

2002 ................................................................................... $1,011,000 $2,800,000

2003 ................................................................................... $1,035,000 $3,130,000

2004 ................................................................................... $984,000 $3,111,000 

GRAZING

Question 2. Over the last several years you have been forced to limit the number 

of cattle that you let ranches put out on their allotments in New Mexico due to continued drought. Two years ago the process used by most of the Forests in New Mexico to inform the ranchers was unacceptable. Last year did improve some. 

What have you done this year to work with the ranchers to relate your expectations for this upcoming grazing season? 

Answer. Region 3 forest managers have been working with permittees throughout 

the winter to describe conditions of forage on Forest Service allotments. This is part 

of the Regional Forester’s ‘‘no surprises’’ policy for National Forests’ managers to 

communicate as early and as openly as possible with permittees regarding 2004 use. 

Also, forest managers have been instructed to consider creative and flexible ways 

to address use and reduced numbers due to permittee requests such as requests for 

changed seasons, changed use patterns, flexible utilization limits, and charging nonuse to resource protection. By far the vast majority of permittees in the Region have 

been very cooperative and understanding of the situation with drought and forage 

use. 

Question 3. What steps have you taken to improve your folks communications 

with the ranchers? 

Answer. In addition to our answer to question 2, the Regional Forester has emphasized range management as a top priority for the Southwestern Region. The Regional Forester and Forest Supervisors are working closely with county commissioners, Congressional delegations and permittees to resolve issues without resorting to confrontation. In addition, the Region and Forests are focusing on coming together with permittees and other affected interests at the local and State levels, listening respectfully to their needs, and assisting with development of solutions at the 

38

local level. Open houses have been held throughout the winter with permittees, individuals and groups and will continue into the spring as the 2004 grazing season begins. 

Question 4. I know that there has been controversy about range monitoring related to allowing the Universities in New Mexico to help provide data. I don’t understand why the Forest Service is willing to accept monitoring from non-governmental 

organizations (for instance on stewardship projects) but somehow your folks in Region Three can’t find a way to work this out with the Universities in New Mexico. 

I am growing seriously concerned with the Forest Service’s grazing operations in 

my State. You need to quickly make an assessment and develop a plan that will 

resolve these issues. 

I would like an action plan to be developed and delivered to me within three 

weeks on specific steps you are taking, or will be taking to improve communications 

with the grazing community in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Answer. The Forest Service is striving to improve communication with the grazing 

communities in Arizona and New Mexico. We are certainly willing to provide your 

staff with a briefing on the actions being taken to improve communication about 

management of the rangeland resources in the region. 

Question 5. The FY 2005 budget includes a $2.5 million reduction for range management (that’s a 5% reduction). This past year we spent a considerable amount of 

time discussing the trouble the Forest Service was having getting NEPA done for 

renewal of grazing permits. At the time, the Forest Service was having great difficulty telling us how many permits they still had to complete. 

Can you tell me today how many grazing permit renewals still need to be done? 

Answer. None, all grazing permit renewals are current for this fiscal year. Section 

325 of the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations Act provides relief until the end of 2008 

for renewal of permits without completion of NEPA analysis. 

There is a problem with completing NEPA on allotments. At the end of FY 2003, 

5,002 allotments were scheduled to be completed out of the original 6,886 allotments 

on the 1996 Rescissions Act schedule. Only 2,296 allotments have been completed. 

A total of 4,590 allotments still need NEPA on the 1996 Rescissions Act Schedule. 

Grazing permits are ‘‘reworked’’ (see question 8) when new terms and conditions 

are incorporated into a grazing permit in order to bring it into conformance with 

changes in law, regulation, or policy. Some of these changes require decisions that 

are supported by a NEPA analysis and some do not. When NEPA analysis is required, it is conducted on the allotment and not the permit since the allotment defines the area on the ground where environmental effects from grazing actually 

occur. The schedule developed to implement the 1995 Rescissions Act tracks allotments, not permits. Changes to the permit cannot be identified until the NEPA 

analysis is completed on the allotment. 

The FY 2005 Budget calls for the Forest Service to adopt methods for 

prioritization through the development and use of qualitative tools that assess 

rangeland health and sustainability through the use of indicators that are linked 

to existing monitoring data. The Forest Service will consult with the Department 

of the Interior to develop and utilize an integrated and consistent framework and 

process for using monitoring and assessment information that leads to reduced allotment monitoring backlogs. 

Question 6. How many you expect to complete this year? 

Answer. Under the authority of Section 325 we intend to issue new permits for 

all permits that expire or are waived this year. The FY 2004 target to complete 

NEPA analysis on allotments is 368. 

Question 7. When do you expect to clear the backlog? 

There is no backlog of permits. There is a problem with completing NEPA on allotments. At the end of FY 2003, 5,002 allotments were scheduled to be completed 

out of the original 6,886 allotments on the 1996 Rescissions Act schedule. Only 

2,296 allotments have been completed. A total of 4,590 allotments still need NEPA 

on the 1996 Rescissions Act Schedule. 

The agency recognizes the need to emphasize long-term condition and trend effectiveness monitoring and the need to de-emphasize annual implementation monitoring. Both kinds of monitoring require quantitative measurements to standup to 

appeals and litigation. Qualitative monitoring has a place but is limited in scope. 

The agency already uses Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), developed by the Bureau of Land Management, to assess the functionality of riparian systems. PFC is 

both a qualitative assessment and qualitative monitoring tool. Science based methods that go beyond the use of PFC require quantitative monitoring. Rapid assessment qualitative measures of upland rangelands have not been repeatable, have too 

much variation, and therefore are not defensible in appeals and litigation. Quantitative allotment level monitoring is developed on an individual project basis as 

39

part of the allotment planning process. Adaptive management should be built into 

the proposed action to allow for maximum flexibility in management. Chapter 90 

of the Range Permit Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13) includes efficiencies 

on how to limit inventory needs, combine multiple allotments for inventory and 

analysis, develop a focused purpose and need statement, develop a focused proposed 

action, limit the number of alternatives analyzed in detail, and include adaptive 

management and monitoring into the proposed action. 

Question 8. Would you provide us a table for each forest and grassland that shows 

the number of grazing permits that currently need to be reworked and how many 

existing permits will come up for renew[al] for each of the next 10 years? 

Answer. Until the end of FY 2008, new grazing permits will be issued when the 

previous permits expire in accordance with Section 325. The attached table shows 

the current status of completion of allotment NEPA and the grazing permits associated with those allotments:

Region 

Rescission allotments Rescission allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

Permits 

tied to 

allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

Allotments on 

1996 

schedule 

Allotments 

NEPA accomplished 

27 Feb 04 

Total 

percent 

of schedule completed 

Northern—Region 1 .......... 1295 289 22% 1006 857

Beaverhead-Deerlodge .......... ............. ................. ............. 125 97

Bitterroot ............................... ............. ................. ............. 53 27

Idaho Panhandle ................... ............. ................. ............. 30 18

Clearwater ............................. ............. ................. ............. 32 30

Custer ..................................... ............. ................. ............. 162 150

Flathead ................................. ............. ................. ............. 77 70

Gallatin .................................. ............. ................. ............. 106 98

Helena .................................... ............. ................. ............. 227 157

Kootenai ................................. ............. ................. ............. 27 10

Lewis and Clark .................... ............. ................. ............. 227 150

Lolo ......................................... ............. ................. ............. 29 15

Nez Perce ............................... ............. ................. ............. 35 35

Rocky Mountain—Region 

2 .......................................... 1664 714 43% 950 668

Bighorn ................................... ............. ................. ............. 27 18

Black Hills ............................. ............. ................. ............. 155 100

GMUG .................................... ............. ................. ............. 47 40

Medicine Bow-Routt .............. ............. ................. ............. 127 100

Rio Grande ............................. ............. ................. ............. 97 60

Arapaho and Roosevelt ......... ............. ................. ............. 69 57

Pike and San Isabel .............. ............. ................. ............. 125 112

San Juan ................................ ............. ................. ............. 225 115

Shoshone ................................ ............. ................. ............. 70 62

White River ............................ ............. ................. ............. 8 4

Southwestern—Region 3 .. 1093 652 60% 441 393

Apache-Sitgreaves ................. ............. ................. ............. 97 87

Carson .................................... ............. ................. ............. 64 55

Cibola ..................................... ............. ................. ............. 72 70

Coconino ................................. ............. ................. ............. 12 9

Coronado ................................ ............. ................. ............. 7 7

Gila ......................................... ............. ................. ............. 14 12

Kaibab .................................... ............. ................. ............. 8 7

Lincoln .................................... ............. ................. ............. 12 10

Prescott .................................. ............. ................. ............. 5 4

Santa Fe ................................. ............. ................. ............. 127 111

Tonto ...................................... ............. ................. ............. 23 21

Intermountain—Region 4 1209 302 25% 907 791

Ashley ..................................... ............. ................. ............. 69 67

Boise ....................................... ............. ................. ............. 28 23

Bridger-Teton ........................ ............. ................. ............. 37 34

Dixie ....................................... ............. ................. ............. 11 9

Fishlake .................................. ............. ................. ............. 39 38

40

Region 

Rescission allotments Rescission allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

Permits 

tied to 

allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

Allotments on 

1996 

schedule 

Allotments 

NEPA accomplished 

27 Feb 04 

Total 

percent 

of schedule completed 

Manti-LaSal ........................... ............. ................. ............. 57 47

Payette ................................... ............. ................. ............. 97 85

Salmon-Challis ...................... ............. ................. ............. 117 100

Sawtooth ................................ ............. ................. ............. 110 97

Caribou-Targhee .................... ............. ................. ............. 187 167

Humboldt-Toiyabe ................. ............. ................. ............. 112 97

Uinta ...................................... ............. ................. ............. 17 12

Wasatch-Cache ...................... ............. ................. ............. 26 15

Pacific Southwest—Region 5 ................................. 722 134 19% 588 386

Eldorado ................................. ............. ................. ............. 37 22

Inyo ......................................... ............. ................. ............. 20 5

Klamath ................................. ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Lassen .................................... 112 90

Los Padres ............................. ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Mendocino .............................. ............. ................. ............. 52 27

Modoc ..................................... ............. ................. ............. 54 41

Six Rivers ............................... ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Plumas ................................... ............. ................. ............. 7 5

Sequoia ................................... ............. ................. ............. 6 2

Shasta-Trinity ....................... ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Sierra ...................................... ............. ................. ............. 77 62

Stanislaus .............................. ............. ................. ............. 165 92

Tahoe ...................................... ............. ................. ............. 58 40

Pacific Northwest—Region 6 ................................. 661 94 14% 567 358

Deschutes ............................... ............. ................. ............. 24 15

Fremont .................................. ............. ................. ............. 112 97

Gifford Pinchot ...................... ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Malheur .................................. ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Mt. Hood ................................ ............. ................. ............. 0 0

Ochoco .................................... ............. ................. ............. 25 17

Rogue River ........................... ............. ................. ............. 27 11

Umatilla ................................. ............. ................. ............. 7 5

Umpqua .................................. ............. ................. ............. 2 1

Wallowa-Whitman ................. ............. ................. ............. 245 100

Colville ................................... ............. ................. ............. 125 112

Southern—Region 8 .......... 144 97 67% 47 16

Kisatchie ................................ ............. ................. ............. 11 5

National Forests in Mississippi ................................ ............. ................. ............. 5 2

George Washington and Jefferson .................................. ............. ................. ............. 25 6

Ouachita ................................. ............. ................. ............. 2 1

Ozark-St. Francis .................. ............. ................. ............. 4 2

Eastern—Region 9 ............. 98 14 14% 84 46

Mark Twain ........................... ............. ................. ............. 57 27

Green Mountain .................... ............. ................. ............. 27 19

Totals .................................. 6886 2296 33% 4590 3515 

The attached table shows when current term grazing permits expire over the tenyear period 2004 to 2013.

41

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Northern—Region 1

Beaverhead-Deerlodge ..... 9 1 0 0 0 0 3 14 38 0

Bitterroot .......................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho Panhandle .............. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clearwater ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0

Custer ................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 31 0

Flathead ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gallatin ............................. 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 14 0

Helena ............................... 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 13 0

Kootenai ............................ 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2

Lewis and Clark ............... 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 0

Lolo .................................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Nez Perce .......................... 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 0

Total ............................... 40 1 0 3 1 0 3 45 126 2

Rocky Mountain—Region 2

Bighorn ............................. 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 10 0

Black Hills ........................ 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 19 39 0

GMUG ............................... 16 0 3 0 1 0 0 16 18 0

Medicine Bow-Routt ......... 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 12

Rio Grande ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 12

Arapaho and Roosevelt .... 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0

Pike and San Isabel ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 32

San Juan ........................... 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 0

Shoshone ........................... 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1

White River ....................... 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 1

Total ............................... 178 0 5 1 2 0 3 53 136 58

Southwestern—Region 

3

Apache-Sitgreaves ............ 2 98 2 6 8 25 9 16 97 4

Carson ............................... 19 36 22 19 26 24 28 19 29 12

Cibola ................................ 15 33 28 5 29 25 22 3 1 0

Coconino ............................ 1 14 11 4 2 3 5 5 1 1

Coronado ........................... 18 46 28 14 27 13 30 20 34 19

Gila .................................... 23 21 6 6 10 7 31 13 21 14

Kaibab ............................... 4 11 3 1 6 1 1 1 17 3

Lincoln .............................. 27 8 16 9 11 6 21 19 14 18

Prescott ............................. 4 14 8 6 3 5 8 10 0 4

Santa Fe ............................ 8 22 16 17 18 16 61 51 62 15

Tonto ................................. 7 18 7 27 7 13 9 7 7 0

Total ............................... 128 321 147 114 147 138 225 164 283 90

Intermountain—Region 

4

Ashley ................................ 0 6 1 2 4 0 2 6 17 1

Boise .................................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Bridger-Teton ................... 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 24 0

Dixie .................................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 14 0

Fishlake ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 0

Manti-LaSal ...................... 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 41 53 0

Payette .............................. 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 16 6 0

Salmon-Challis ................. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 42 0

Sawtooth ........................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0

Caribou-Targhee ............... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0

Humboldt-Toiyabe ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0

Uinta ................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 39 0

Wasatch-Cache ................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 5 0

Total ............................... 17 7 2 5 5 1 17 83 292 1

Pacific Southwest—Region 5

Eldorado ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Inyo .................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0

Klamath ............................ 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1

Lassen ............................... 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6

Los Padres ........................ 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 4

Mendocino ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

Modoc ................................ 2 2 0 0 6 0 6 3 66 2

Six Rivers .......................... 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0

42

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Plumas .............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0

Sequoia .............................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 0

Shasta-Trinity .................. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Sierra ................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4

Stanislaus ......................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

Tahoe ................................. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4

Total ............................... 17 2 1 3 6 3 6 21 116 21

Pacific Northwest—Region 6

Deschutes .......................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Fremont ............................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0

Gifford Pinchot ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Malheur ............................. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 0

Mt. Hood ........................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Ochoco ............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 4 0

Rogue River ...................... 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0

Umatilla ............................ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0

Umpqua ............................. 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 14 0

Wallowa-Whitman ............ 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 12 0

Colville .............................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 48 0

Total ............................... 16 0 1 0 0 2 5 21 122 0

Southern—Region 8

Ouachita ............................ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0

Total ............................... 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0

Eastern—Region 9

Huron Manistee ................ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0

Mark Twain ...................... 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0

Monongahela ..................... 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Total ............................... 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 1 

Question 9. Please also display the projected work assignments by forest related 

to the number of permits that will need to be renewed each year to complete the 

backlog in 8 years? 

Answer. Please refer to attached table, which represents an 8-year projection of 

the workload remaining by Forest to complete NEPA on those allotments remaining 

on the schedule.

Region/forest 

Allotments 

NEPA 

to be 

accomp. 

2004 

NEPA to be accomplished Rescission allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Northern—Region 1 ..... ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 1006

Beaverhead-Deerlodge ..... 100 5 10 0 10 0 0 0 125

Bitterroot .......................... 3 10 20 5 5 5 5 0 53

Idaho Panhandle .............. 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 30

Clearwater ........................ 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 32

Custer ................................ 50 10 2 50 25 25 0 0 162

Flathead ............................ 25 10 17 5 10 10 0 0 77

Gallatin ............................. 50 25 25 5 1 0 0 0 106

Helena ............................... 77 50 100 25 25 0 0 0 227

Kootenai ............................ 7 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 27

Lewis & Clark .................. 79 28 59 50 12 0 0 0 227

Lolo .................................... 0 9 10 10 0 0 0 0 29

Nez Perce .......................... 15 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 35

Rocky Mountain—Region 2 ............................ ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 950

Bighorn ............................. 7 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 27

Black Hills ........................ 55 50 25 25 0 0 0 0 155

GMUG ............................... 17 10 10 5 5 0 0 0 47

Medicine Bow-Routt ......... 57 50 20 5 0 0 0 0 127

Rio Grande ........................ 7 10 25 25 10 10 10 0 97

Arapaho-Roosevelt ........... 29 25 10 4 1 0 0 0 69

43

Region/forest 

Allotments 

NEPA 

to be 

accomp. 

2004 

NEPA to be accomplished Rescission allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Pike-San Isabel ................ 25 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 125

San Juan ........................... 50 50 50 50 25 0 0 0 225

Shoshone ........................... 25 25 10 10 0 0 0 0 70

White River ...................... 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Southwestern—Region 

3 ..................................... ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 441

Apache-Sitgreaves ............ 50 25 10 10 2 0 0 0 97

Carson ............................... 25 25 10 4 0 0 0 0 64

Cibola ................................ 25 25 10 10 2 0 0 0 72

Coconino ............................ 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 12

Coronado ........................... 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7

Gila .................................... 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 14

Kaibab ............................... 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 8

Lincoln .............................. 7 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 12

Prescott ............................. 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5

Santa Fe ............................ 117 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 127

Tonto ................................. 13 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 23

Intermountain—Region 

4 ..................................... ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 907

Ashley ............................... 16 3 10 15 15 5 5 0 69

Boise .................................. 12 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 28

Bridger-Teton ................... 17 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 37

Dixie .................................. 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 11

Fishlake ............................ 15 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 39

Manti-LaSal ...................... 25 17 5 5 5 0 0 0 57

Payette .............................. 25 25 17 10 5 5 10 0 97

Salmon-Challis ................. 27 25 37 10 11 7 0 0 117

Sawtooth ........................... 72 31 2 5 0 0 0 0 110

Caribou-Targhee ............... 57 30 25 25 25 25 0 0 187

Humboldt-Toiyabe ............ 12 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 112

Uinta ................................. 7 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 17

Wasatch-Cache ................. 6 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 26

Pacific Southwest—Region 5 ............................ ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 588

Eldorado ............................ 7 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 37

Inyo ................................... 10 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 20

Klamath ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lassen ............................... 22 10 55 5 5 5 10 0 112

Los Padres ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mendocino ......................... 12 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 52

Modoc ................................ 10 7 7 10 10 10 0 0 54

Six Rivers .......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plumas .............................. 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7

Sequoia .............................. 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6

Shasta-Trinity .................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sierra ................................ 27 25 10 10 5 0 0 0 77

Stanislaus ......................... 55 25 25 25 25 10 0 0 165

Tahoe ................................. 28 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 58

Pacific Northwest—Region 6 ............................ ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 567

Deschutes .......................... 14 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 24

Fremont ............................ 25 25 25 25 10 2 0 0 112

Gifford Pinchot ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Malheur ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mt. Hood ........................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ochoco ............................... 5 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 25

Rogue River ...................... 7 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 27

Umatilla ............................ 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 7

Umpqua ............................ 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Wallowa-Whitman ............ 124 27 81 0 10 3 0 0 245

Colville .............................. 25 25 25 25 0 25 0 0 125

Southern—Region 8 ..... ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 47

Kisatchie ........................... 1 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 11

NF Mississippi .................. 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 5

44

Region/forest 

Allotments 

NEPA 

to be 

accomp. 

2004 

NEPA to be accomplished Rescission allotments 

still 

needing 

NEPA 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

GW-Jefferson .................... 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 25

Ouachita ........................... 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

Ozark St.-Francis ............. 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

Eastern—Region 9 ........ ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 84

Mark Twain ...................... 7 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 57

Green Mountain ............... 7 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 27

Total All Regions .......... ............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 4,590 

Question 10. On a separate table please display by forest and grassland the 

amount of funding for each of the last five years expended on grazing permit renewal and the number of permits that were successfully completed on each forest 

and grassland. 

Answer. The Forest Service does not track expenditures to the level of detail requested. However, we have provided a table that shows the number of permits 

issued by Forest, by Region, for each of the last 5 years, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, and the number of allotments for which NEPA was completed on for each of 

the last 5 years.

Permits issued within the last 5 years 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Northern—Region 1

Beaverhead-Deerlodge .................................. 25 10 2 5 2

Bitterroot ....................................................... 10 1 0 0 0

Idaho Panhandle ........................................... 5 0 2 0 0

Clearwater ..................................................... 1 0 0 1 0

Custer ............................................................. 5 0 5 0 0

Flathead ......................................................... 2 5 0 2 0

Gallatin .......................................................... 15 2 5 0 0

Helena ............................................................ 2 3 2 0 0

Kootenai ......................................................... 2 1 0 2 0

Lewis and Clark ............................................ 10 5 0 0 0

Lolo ................................................................. 5 0 5 0 0

Nez Perce ....................................................... 10 5 5 0 0

Total ............................................................ 91 32 31 11 2

Rocky Mountain—Region 2. Bighorn .......................................................... 15 5 5 10 0

Black Hills ..................................................... 5 10 0 0 0

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 12 0 5 2 14

Medicine Bow-Routt ...................................... 10 15 10 8 1

Rio Grande ..................................................... 5 5 0 0 0

Arapaho and Roosevelt ................................. 5 0 0 10 0

Pike and San Isabel ...................................... 12 6 0 30 0

San Juan ........................................................ 5 0 5 0 0

Shoshone ........................................................ 15 0 10 0 0

White River .................................................... 2 0 0 0 27

Total ............................................................ 86 41 35 60 42

Southwestern—Region 3

Apache-Sitgreaves ......................................... 30 5 18 3 2

Carson ............................................................ 5 0 2 5 0

Cibola ............................................................. 26 5 17 25 5

Coconino ......................................................... 10 12 5 10 12

Coronado ........................................................ 15 2 5 5 25

Gila ................................................................. 30 0 0 10 15

Kaibab ............................................................ 10 0 5 2 0

Lincoln ........................................................... 13 3 0 10 12

Prescott .......................................................... 2 10 5 0 0

45

Permits issued within the last 5 years 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Santa Fe ......................................................... 5 13 1 7 12

Tonto .............................................................. 5 2 5 0 0

Total ............................................................ 151 52 63 77 83

Intermountain—Region 4

Ashley ............................................................. 2 6 2 0 5

Boise ............................................................... 2 0 8 5 0

Bridger-Teton ................................................ 0 6 2 0 0

Dixie ............................................................... 10 0 5 0 0

Fishlake ......................................................... 2 21 0 5 0

Manti-LaSal ................................................... 5 0 2 0 0

Payette ........................................................... 0 5 0 2 4

Salmon-Challis .............................................. 2 0 5 1 2

Sawtooth ........................................................ 2 0 5 1 0

Caribou-Targhee ............................................ 16 5 2 10 12

Humboldt-Toiyabe ......................................... 0 5 2 0 0

Uinta .............................................................. 5 0 2 0 0

Wasatch-Cache .............................................. 5 2 0 5 0

Total ............................................................ 51 50 35 29 23

Pacific Southwest—Region 5

Eldorado ......................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Inyo ................................................................. 0 6 0 0 0

Klamath ......................................................... 0 0 11 0 0

Lassen ............................................................ 0 2 0 0 0

Los Padres ..................................................... 2 2 0 0 0

Mendocino ...................................................... 0 1 0 0 0

Modoc ............................................................. 25 10 0 0 0

Six Rivers ....................................................... 0 2 0 0 0

Plumas ........................................................... 0 2 1 0 0

Sequoia ........................................................... 0 1 0 6 0

Shasta-Trinity ............................................... 0 2 0 1 0

Sierra .............................................................. 0 1 0 0 0

Stanislaus ...................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Tahoe .............................................................. 1 5 0 0 0

Total ............................................................ 30 34 12 7 0

Pacific Northwest—Region 6

Deschutes ....................................................... 2 0 1 0 0

Fremont .......................................................... 10 0 5 2 0

Gifford Pinchot .............................................. 0 2 0 0 0

Malheur .......................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Mt. Hood ........................................................ 0 1 0 0 0

Ochoco ............................................................ 0 4 1 0 0

Rogue River ................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Umatilla ......................................................... 0 1 0 0 0

Umpqua .......................................................... 0 0 1 0 0

Wallowa-Whitman ......................................... 10 5 1 2 0

Wenatchee ...................................................... 4 0 2 5 0

Colville ........................................................... 5 2 2 1 0

Total ............................................................ 33 15 13 10 0

Southern—Region 8

Kisatchie ........................................................ 5 5 2 0 0

National Forests in Mississippi ................... 2 0 2 0 0

George Washington and Jefferson ............... 1 2 0 0 0

Ouachita ......................................................... 1 3 0 6 0

Ozark-St. Francis .......................................... 1 0 1 0 0

Total ............................................................ 10 10 5 6 0

Eastern—Region 9

Mark Twain ................................................... 10 2 5 0 0

46

Permits issued within the last 5 years 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Green Mountain ............................................ 2 2 0 0 0

Total ............................................................ 12 4 5 0 0 

Allotments with NEPA completed for the past 5 

years 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Northern—Region 1

Beaverhead-Deerlodge .................................. 16 4 1 0 2

Bitterroot ....................................................... 0 1 0 0 0

Idaho Panhandle ........................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Clearwater ..................................................... 0 0 0 1 0

Custer ............................................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Flathead ......................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Gallatin .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Helena ............................................................ 0 4 2 0 0

Kootenai ......................................................... 2 0 0 2 0

Lewis and Clark ............................................ 0 0 0 0 0

Lolo ................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Nez Perce ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total ............................................................ 19 9 2 3 2

Rocky Mountain—Region 2

Bighorn .......................................................... 5 0 0 0 0

Black Hills ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 2 0 0 2 14

Medicine Bow-Routt ...................................... 9 25 10 8 1

Rio Grande ..................................................... 1 1 0 0 0

Arapaho and Roosevelt ................................. 1 0 0 0 0

Pike and San Isabel ...................................... 0 6 0 31 0

San Juan ........................................................ 1 0 0 0 0

Shoshone ........................................................ 4 0 0 0 4

White River .................................................... 1 0 0 0 27

Total ............................................................ 24 32 10 41 46

Southwestern—Region 3

Apache-Sitgreaves ......................................... 26 5 8 3 1

Carson ............................................................ 2 2 1 0 4

Cibola ............................................................. 204 5 7 30 2

Coconino ......................................................... 0 2 2 0 2

Coronado ........................................................ 3 2 1 1 13

Gila ................................................................. 21 0 0 6 5

Kaibab ............................................................ 0 0 5 0 0

Lincoln ........................................................... 3 3 0 0 4

Prescott .......................................................... 0 0 1 0 0

Santa Fe ......................................................... 1 3 1 3 7

Tonto .............................................................. 1 1 0 0 0

Total ............................................................ 261 23 26 43 38

Intermountain—Region 4

Ashley ............................................................. 0 6 1 0 4

Boise ............................................................... 1 1 6 2 3

Bridger-Teton ................................................ 0 6 1 0 0

Dixie ............................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Fishlake ......................................................... 0 27 0 0 0

Manti-LaSal ................................................... 4 0 0 0 0

Payette ........................................................... 0 0 0 0 4

Salmon-Challis .............................................. 1 0 0 1 0

Sawtooth ........................................................ 0 0 0 1 2

Caribou-Targhee ............................................ 6 6 1 18 19

Humboldt-Toiyabe ......................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Uinta .............................................................. 8 0 0 0 1

47

Allotments with NEPA completed for the past 5 

years 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Wasatch-Cache .............................................. 0 1 0 0 0

Total ............................................................ 20 47 9 22 33

Pacific Southwest—Region 5

Eldorado ......................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Inyo ................................................................. 0 4 2 0 0

Klamath ......................................................... 0 0 8 3 0

Lassen ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 0

Los Padres ..................................................... 1 1 2 1 0

Mendocino ...................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Modoc ............................................................. 2 34 0 2 0

Six Rivers ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Plumas ........................................................... 0 1 0 0 2

Sequoia ........................................................... 0 0 0 8 0

Shasta-Trinity ............................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Sierra .............................................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Stanislaus ...................................................... 1 0 0 0 0

Tahoe .............................................................. 0 1 0 5 0

Total ............................................................ 5 41 12 19 2

Pacific Northwest—Region 6

Deschutes ....................................................... 2 0 0 0 0

Fremont .......................................................... 15 0 6 1 0

Gifford Pinchot .............................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Malheur .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Mt. Hood ........................................................ 0 0 0 0 0

Ochoco ............................................................ 0 5 0 0 0

Rogue River ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Umatilla ......................................................... 0 0 0 1 0

Umpqua .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Wallowa-Whitman ......................................... 0 0 10 6 2

Wenatchee ...................................................... 0 4 0 0 0

Colville ........................................................... 0 2 1 0 3

Total ............................................................ 17 11 16 8 5

Southern—Region 8

Kisatchie ........................................................ 12 0 0 0 0

National Forests in Mississippi ................... 4 0 0 0 0

George Washington and Jefferson ............... 0 3 0 0 0

Ouachita ......................................................... 4 0 0 0 7

Ozark-St. Francis .......................................... 0 0 1 0 0

Total ............................................................ 20 3 1 0 7

Eastern—Region 9

Mark Twain ................................................... 12 0 0 0 0

Green Mountain ............................................ 1 0 0 0 0

Total ............................................................ 13 0 0 0 0 

Question 11. You mentioned that you have made changes to your grazing regulations, specifically how will those changes allow the field to increase the number of 

permits they work on and the speed with which that work is completed? Please provide specific examples and specific estimates of the time saved, as well as specific 

estimates of the money to be saved by this new process. 

Answer. Forest Service has not made any changes to grazing regulations. Policy 

was issued in the Forest Service Handbook at 2209.13, Chapter 90, Rangeland Management Decision Making in mid-February. It clarifies existing policies and raises 

the awareness level of successful practices currently in use by emphasizing the following:

• Environmental analysis focuses on the condition of the land that is to be maintained or achieved. 

48

• ‘‘Project initiation’’ precedes NEPA analysis and results in a well defined purpose and need statement and a proposed action to start the actual NEPA process. NEPA does not begin until the proposed action is well defined. Permittees 

are encouraged to participate in development of the proposed action. 

• Inventory and analysis needs are better defined and minimized. Inventory and 

analyses are encouraged on combinations of multiple allotments. 

• Principles of adaptive management and accompanying monitoring are included 

in the proposed action, which extends the life of the decision and allows for implementation of future management options with minimal additional work. 

• Alternatives analyzed in detail are kept to an absolute minimum, usually two 

or three.

The FY 2005 Budget calls for the Forest Service to adopt methods for 

prioritization through the development and use of qualitative tools that assess 

rangeland health and sustainability through the use of indicators that are linked 

to existing monitoring data. The Forest Service will consult with the Department 

of the Interior to develop and utilize an integrated and consistent framework and 

process for using monitoring and assessment information that leads to reduced allotment monitoring backlogs. Cumulatively applying these practices should reduce the 

time it takes to complete NEPA analyses and should extend the life of decisions. 

While specific estimates of savings are not known, we believe that applying the efficiencies in Chapter 90 which includes inventory and analysis on multiple allotments 

will reduce costs. 

GALLINAS MUNICIPAL WATERSHED W-U INTERFACE FUELS TREATMENT PROJECT

Question 12. Chief, could you update me on the progress being made on the 

Gallinas Municipal Watershed W-U Interface Fuels Treatment Project? 

Answer. The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was made available for public 

notice and comment on February 20, 2004. The first public open house to discuss 

the draft EA took place on March 10, 2004. A documented decision was made on 

April 2, 2004. Comments are currently being reviewed, and a Decision Notice should 

be issued by May 10, 2004. Anyone who submitted substantive comments to the EA 

then has 45 days in which to appeal. We expect the project to be implemented this 

year. 

Question 13. What is the time-line for completion and when will NEPA be done? 

Answer. Initial treatments are anticipated to begin in October 2004. According to 

the proposed action of this project to treat approximately 8,400 acres, multiple treatments are envisioned for up to 10 years. We anticipate the NEPA process will be 

completed by May 10, 2004. 

SANTA FE WATERSHED FUELS TREATMENT PROJECT

Question 14. How is the Santa Fe Watershed Fuels Treatment project coming 

along? 

Answer. We are currently on target and on schedule. Approximately 1,000 acres 

will be treated in FY 2004. 

Question 15. What are your current costs per acre for the work that you are currently doing? 

Answer. The current cost per acre is $963. 

Question 16. When do you expect to complete that project? 

Answer. The project total is 7,300 acres. To date 2,100 acres have been treated. 

If funding remains consistent, we anticipate completing the project in September of 

2006. 

REGION THREE FOREST PLANS

Question 17. My staff tells me the most recent schedule for completion of the forest plan revisions indicates that the Region Three forest in my State will not get 

new plans until 2011. As you know, all of the plans in my State had reached their 

National Forest Management Act Required Revision date by 2002. 

Why is it that forest plans that will not reach their 15 year National Forest Management Act Required Revision date until 2004, 2005 and even 2008 are scheduled 

to be completed before any of the plans in my State? 

Answer. In an effort to improve management of the plan revision process, the Forest Service developed a Forest Plan Revision Schedule. The revision schedule sets 

priorities for plan revisions based on several considerations. Those National Forest 

System units facing a multitude of ecological and social concerns such as impaired 

waters, imperiled species, fire risk, forest health, undue human pressure, or persistent poverty were considered as high priorities for revision. National Forest SysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
49

tem units with recent significant amendments or without the issues identified were 

considered lower priorities for revision. There was also an attempt to group National 

Forest System units with similar ecological, social and economic settings to improve 

planning efficiency and reduce planning costs. Therefore, some forest plans were 

scheduled later than if their original completion dates was the only criteria. 

The Southwestern Region amended the entire Region’s Forest Plans in 1996 to 

address Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk. This reduced the need to revise the forest plans. Also, the Region has been completing core assessment and inventory collection which must be done prior to revisions being initiated. 

HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT IMPLEMENTATION

Question 18. I understand that the Washington Office has informed the field that 

you expect 4 million acres of Healthy Forest Restoration Act treatments to be completed this next fiscal year. This estimate is down from the 5 million acre amount 

that Undersecretary Rey indicated to my staff that the target would be prior to the 

All Forest Supervisors meeting in Nebraska. 

Why the reduction in target level from the end of January to now? 

Answer. Undersecretary Rey was referring a combination of Forest Service and 

Department of Interior’s acres in his estimates. The Forest Service projections reflect the most recent Agency estimates. FY 2004 projections are 1.6 million acres, 

funded from hazardous fuels, with other programs improving Fire Regime Condition 

Class (FRCC) of an estimated 600,000 acres. FY 2005 projections are 1.8 million 

acres, funded from hazardous fuels, with other programs improving FRCC of a currently estimated 673,000 acres. 

Question 19. How many acres of condition class two and three lands fall within 

the National Forest System? 

Answer. According to ‘‘Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland 

Fire and Fuel Management’’, the General Technical Report published by the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station in 2002, there are 80.4 million acres of condition class 

2 and 51.1 million acres of condition class 3 in Forest Service lands for a total of 

131.5 million acres in condition classes 2 and 3. 

Question 20. Of the 4 million acres you suggested will be treated in FY 2004, how 

many of those will be within the National Forest System? 

Answer. The Forest Service will make treatments that contribute to improving 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) on 2.2 million acres in FY 2004. Hazardous 

fuel reduction activities will account for 1.6 million acres, and other programs will 

account for 600,000 acres. Virtually all of the 2.2 million acres projected for treatment in FY 2004 will be on National Forest System lands. 

Question 21. How many of those acres will be within the forested areas that are 

overstocked and infested with insects? 

Answer. Almost all of the acres to be treated with hazardous fuels reduction activities, as well as acres treated through other programs, will be within forested 

areas that are overstocked, and many of these acres are infested with insects. In 

addition to those acres, Forest Health Management funds will be used to treat 

77,000 acres that are overstocked and are at imminent risk of insect infestation. 

Question 22. How many of those acres will be targeted at New Mexico? 

Answer. 70,243 acres will be treated in New Mexico in FY 2004 using hazardous 

fuel reduction funding. In addition, other funds will be used to treat approximately 

62,700 acres to improve condition class, through programs such as wildland fire use, 

watershed improvement, wildlife improvement, and rangeland improvement. 

Question 23. How many acres will be within the overstocked and infested forest 

areas within New Mexico? 

Answer. All of the acres listed in the answer above are projected in areas of declining forest and rangeland health where restoration of fire adapted systems is urgent. In addition to those acres, 300 overstocked and infested forest acres will be 

treated with Forest Health Management funds in New Mexico. 

Question 24. Can you get my staff a detailed list of the projects that will be undertaken in New Mexico this year, along with NEPA completion dates and the projected offer dates? 

Answer. We were unable to compile the specific projects being planned in New 

Mexico down to the level of detail requested. New Mexico’s FY 2004 target for acres 

treated for hazardous fuels is 74,055. The target for acres treated by other programs 

that improve condition class in FY 2004 is 36,730. 

Question 25. How much of the treatment nationally will be accomplished with prescribed burning? 

Answer. We estimate about 1.36 million acres, funded by the hazardous fuels line 

item, will be treated with prescribed burning. Other programs may use prescribed 

50

burning to treat a small portion of the 600,000 acres that will be treated to improve 

fire regime condition class; but there are no current estimates of the amount. 

Question 26. How much of the treatment nationally will be accomplished with the 

mechanical removal of the fuel from the forests? 

Answer. We estimate about 240,000 acres, funded by the hazardous fuels line 

item, will be treated mechanically. Other programs will use mechanical treatment 

to treat most of the 600,000 acres that will be treated to improve fire regime condition class. 

Question 27. How much of that mechanical treatment will involve commercial timber sales? 

Answer. About 260,000 acres will be treated using forest products and timber salvage sales activities. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS SPENDING

Question 28. I also understand that you put out a press release right before this 

budget was released that trumpeted the fact that the Administration’s proposed 

budget had $760 million in it to implement the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Can you tell me how much of that $760 million is for the implementation of Titles 

Two through Five of the Healthy Forest Restoration Law? Answer. The $760 million is for implementation of Title I. 

WILDLAND FIRE PROGRAMS

Question 29. I see that you recommended moving hazardous fuels reduction from 

the Wildland Fire Management section of the budget to the National Forest Systems 

section of the budget. I think I agree with that, but could you explain why and what 

the advantages of this are? 

If we make that move, will the hazardous fuel line item be more vulnerable or 

less vulnerable to future fire borrowing? 

Answer. The funds would be less vulnerable in the NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM appropriation to future fire transfer if Congress continues to enact language 

similar to language that was included in the ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, 

FOREST SERVICE section in Public Law 108-7, Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. 

That language provides that ‘‘Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest 

Service may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 

under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe burning conditions if and 

only if all previously appropriated emergency contingent funds under the heading 

‘Wildland Fire Management’ have been released by the President and apportioned 

and all funds under the heading ‘Wildland Fire Management’ are obligated.’’

This proposal will improve management in two ways. First, it will give hazardous 

fuels projects a greater chance to continue, and not be cancelled or delayed, during 

times of severe wildfire activity when the agency needs to transfer funds. Second, 

it will enhance integration of hazardous fuel treatments with other vegetative treatment programs in NFS. 

Question 30. On the subject of fire suppression costs. Over the last five years it 

appears that the agencies have figured out how to spend a billion to a billion and 

a half dollars per year for fire suppression, no matter whether we burn 3 million 

acres or we burn 7.5 million acres. Can you tell me what steps you have taken between the year 2000 and today to get control of this situation? 

Answer. In response to the 2000 fire season, the Forest Service and Department 

of Interior jointly developed the National Fire Plan. This plan laid out four goals 

for the federal wildland firefighting agencies to work towards over the next 10 

years. To these ends, the agencies are working to improve fire prevention and suppression cost containment, reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire adapted ecosystems, and promoting community assistance. 

In 2003, President Bush announced the Healthy Forest Initiative. This led to the 

passing of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The provisions of this Act will enable us to protect the safety of firefighters and the public, care for America’s forests 

and rangelands, reduce the risk of fire to communities, and protect threatened and 

endangered species. 

The Forest Service is using these tools to revise policy, improve Decision Support 

Systems, streamline procedures, and strengthen our relationships with other federal, state, and local agencies. These changes will lead to improvements in cost containment and environmental conditions. 

Specific to your question, the Forest Service has issued two reports that outline 

expectations of line officers, incident commanders, and employees in the area of supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
51

pression cost containment. We have standing cost containment oversight teams that 

visit large incidents and recommend actions that will reduce expenditures. We are 

developing a new fire planning system that will lead to better strategic analysis of 

large fires and the decisions that cause them to become expensive. We are developing a new situation analysis that will display a better range of suppression alternatives to line officers during their decision process. This will be accomplished by 

clarifying the definition of the least cost suppression alternatives within decision 

support models and establish this alternative as the default option for suppression 

activities for a given incident and by completing updated geospatially-based fire 

management plans linked to databases that will lead to increases in the annual 

number and acres designated as wildland fire use fires. We are embarking on an 

aggressive fuel management program to rid forests of accumulated fuel. In addition, 

we will:

• Implement priority cost containment activities called for in the FY 2004 President’s Budget and the recommendations contained within the Wildland Fire 

Management PART, as well as select recommendations from the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report entitled, Wildfire Suppression: 

Strategies for Containing Costs. 

• Reduce wildland fire suppression costs through a continued emphasis on the accountability of line officers and incident commanders. 

• Review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation resources and assess state 

cost-share agreements to ensure that the federal government is not paying a 

disproportionately high share of suppression costs. 

• Continue to conduct national cost containment reviews on selected incidents 

and implement recommendations contained in the Consolidated Large Fire Cost 

Report of 2003 to address suppression cost containment issues raised during 

cost reviews in FY 2003. Provide oversight to ensure that cost containment 

measures are implemented. 

• Working through the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s Incident Based 

Automation Task Group, continue to enhance the ‘‘real-time’’ incident obligation 

reporting system.

In addition, in FY 2005 the Forest Service will initiate incentives to reduce suppression expenditures. The President’s Budget proposes to allocate fifty percent of 

suppression funds to the field and allow unobligated year-end balances to be retained by the regions to be used for vegetative treatments to improve condition 

class. The objective is to create an incentive in the field (additional funds for onthe-ground work) to reduce expenditures, with the goal of eliminating the need to 

transfer funds. An added benefit will be an increase in funds available to improve 

condition class, which will further reduce suppression costs and the need to transfer 

funds. The President’s Budget also includes cost containment actions and performance measures, expands the use of risk mitigation, updates fire management plans 

to increase wildland fire use, and implements suppression cost savings incentives. 

The Forest Service and Department of the Interior will develop a process through 

which rural fire department training, experience, and qualifications can be recognized as equivalent to National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) qualifications. 

Together with agency actions already under way, these efforts should effectively reduce the need for further borrowing, supplemental appropriations, or both. 

USDA and the Department of the Interior will continue to enhance agency policy 

and procedures to reduce suppression costs. 

Question 31. Would you provide me a table that shows what the Federal fire suppressions costs were by agency and by year from 1985 through 2003? 

Answer. Obligations are available for the Department of the Interior (DOI) as a 

whole, but not by the individual agencies within DOI. Obligations are shown in 

thousands of dollars on the following page, and have been adjusted for inflation 

(2003 dollars).

FS DOI 

1985 ............................................................................................... 245,513 119,240

1986 ............................................................................................... 165,832 135,418

1987 ............................................................................................... 367,251 117,928

1988 ............................................................................................... 603,026 209,590

1989 ............................................................................................... 448,144 227,151

1990 ............................................................................................... 330,513 187,927

1991 ............................................................................................... 166,120 92,691

1992 ............................................................................................... 355,569 106,764

1993 ............................................................................................... 220,371 67,595

52

FS DOI 

1994 ............................................................................................... 887,789 188,925

1995 ............................................................................................... 421,425 126,457

1996 ............................................................................................... 616,848 173,149

1997 ............................................................................................... 198,323 116,323

1998 ............................................................................................... 335,657 120,241

1999 ............................................................................................... 389,945 166,751

2000 ............................................................................................... 1,138,946 354,388

2001 ............................................................................................... 706,551 254,435

2002 ............................................................................................... 1,299,877 401,488

2003 ............................................................................................... 1,023,500 303,638 

Question 32. Please also provide the average cost per fire and the average cost 

per acre burned on the lands controlled by each agency, for each year between 1985 

and 2003. We need the BIA, BLM, US Park Service, US Fish & Wildlife Service 

and the Forest Service. 

Answer. We have provided this information for the Forest Service (FS) on the following page, and respectfully defer to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for their 

portion of the response. Costs are adjusted for inflation (2003 dollars):

FS $/fire FS $/acre 

1985 ................................................................................................. N/A N/A 

1986 ................................................................................................. N/A N/A 

1987 ................................................................................................. 31,147 329

1988 ................................................................................................. 44,555 404

1989 ................................................................................................. 38,205 962

1990 ................................................................................................. 27,805 1,092

1991 ................................................................................................. 15,746 1,330

1992 ................................................................................................. 29,180 562

1993 ................................................................................................. 28,527 1,000

1994 ................................................................................................. 59,809 600

1995 ................................................................................................. 49,451 1,749

1996 ................................................................................................. 55,606 660

1997 ................................................................................................. 20,395 821

1998 ................................................................................................. 38,648 1,570

1999 ................................................................................................. 40,708 540

2000 ................................................................................................. 95,863 545

2001 ................................................................................................. 69,611 1,250

2002 ................................................................................................. 141,877 753

2003 ................................................................................................. 103,499 858 

Question 33. I would also like you to provide us with comparable data for Canada 

and Australia for that same time period. Please amass this data and present it in 

2003 dollars, rather than nominal dollars. And adjust the data from Canada and 

Australia into US dollars. 

Answer. We are unable to obtain the information from Australia and Canada in 

time to meet the Committee publication deadline. However, we will provide the requested information. 

Question 34. I know that you continue to tell us that cost by acre or by fire are 

not ‘‘good’’ measures to examine when we examine the costs of fire fighting. Please 

provide us with four or five criteria for measuring the costs of fire fighting that you 

believe would be better criteria for Congress to measure agency performance 

against? 

Answer. The 10-Year Implementation Plan identified several performance measures for fire fighting. This includes the average gross costs per acre for suppression 

and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation by size class and fire regime for fires 

(i) contained within initial attack; (ii) escaping initial attack; (iii) within wildlandurban interface areas; (iv) outside wildland-interface areas; (v) in areas with compliant fire management plans; and (vi) in areas without compliant fire management 

plans. The agency will use this and other measures as we continue to explore other 

appropriate measures. We have three small research groups working on various 

ways to isolate and explain these variables so that meaningful performance measures can be adopted. 

The Forest Service is also looking at ways to determine break-even points (value 

of resources protected versus predicted suppression cost) that will indicate whether 

53

or not a suppression action is economically advisable. There is some progress in this 

study, but not enough to say whether it could be used as a performance measure 

or as only a part of the decision process. 

Other short term research and development that may assist with development of 

performance measures deals with the development of a prediction system for large 

fire suppression costs and a fireline production model for suppression success, cost 

and other related outputs. 

MESCALERO APACHE MILL CLOSURE

Chief, I know you are aware that the last two major sawmills in my state, the 

mills run by the Mescalero Apache, are on the verge of shutting down. I know you 

and Mr. Rey understand that operations cannot be maintained without a vast improvement in the Lincoln National Forest’s timber sale program. 

Question 35. How much timber is growing annually on the Lincoln? 

Answer. The latest inventory was in 1999, and at that time the growth on the 

Lincoln National Forest (NF) was 49.5 million board feet (MMBF) gross volume per 

year, and 39.0 MMBF net volume per year after mortality is deducted. This volume 

is calculated on non-reserved timberland. 

Question 36. How much timber is dying annually on the Lincoln? 

Answer. The latest inventory was in 1999, and at that time the mortality on the 

Lincoln NF was approximately 10.5 million board feet (MMBF) per year. This volume is calculated on non-reserved timberland. 

Question 37. How much has been removed through sale each of the last ten years? 

Answer. See the table below. This data includes both timber sale contracts and 

personal use volume removed.

LINCOLN NF 

Fiscal year 

Volume 

removed 

(MMBF) 

1994 ................................................................................................................. 3.3

1995 ................................................................................................................. 3.6

1996 ................................................................................................................. 1.3

1997 ................................................................................................................. 2.8

1998 ................................................................................................................. 1.5

1999 ................................................................................................................. 2.4

2000 ................................................................................................................. 1.6

2001 ................................................................................................................. 2.7

2002 ................................................................................................................. 8.2

2003 ................................................................................................................. 4.1 

Question 38. Do you agree with me that you will never be able to accomplish complete forest health restoration unless you have the industrial infrastructure (sawmills, pulp mills, and biomass facilities) to utilize the materials? 

Answer. Yes, a viable industrial infrastructure is needed to accomplish our management objectives at a lower cost than other alternatives. Additional industrial infrastructure would help provide more efficient opportunities to address this challenge. However, there are other ways to accomplish forest health restoration, and 

we are also pursuing those methods in combination with timber harvest. 

Question 39. What are you going to do on the Lincoln over the next five years 

to ensure it will not be the Forest Service’s fault that the last sawmill in New Mexico gets shut down? 

Answer. On March 1, 2004, the Regional Forester and his staff, the Lincoln NF 

Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, the New Mexico State Forester, mill managers, 

and the Vice-President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, met to understand the situation and determine what the Forest Service can do as part of a solution. A capability 

assessment will be conducted on the Forest to determine what can be produced and 

what the mill needs. 

Question 40. Would you also provide me with those same growth, mortality and 

removal figures for the other forests in Region Three? 

Answer. Figures in the following table are for timber softwood species on non reserved timberland on National Forest System land. They are based on inventories 

completed in 1999 (AZ) and 2000 (NM).

54

National forest/Unit/State Acres 

Gross 

cubic-foot 

volume 

(MCF) 

Gross

annual 

cubic-foot 

growth 

(MCF) 

Annual 

cubic-foot 

mortality 

(MCF) 

Net

annual 

cubic-foot 

growth 

MCF) 

Apache-Sitgreaves—01—

AZ .................................. 903,548 1,437,436 38,983 3,664 35,319

Carson—02—NM ............. 637,522 1,136,669 22,987 4,523 18,464

Cibola—03—NM .............. 448,612 480,625 12,947 1,370 11,577

Coconino—04—AZ ........... 811,875 1,171,492 28,929 4,393 24,536

Coronado—05—AZ .......... 65,731 168,711 2,294 na 2,294

Gila—06—NM ................. 1,081,141 953,131 22,017 1,313 20,704

Kaibab—07—AZ .............. 500,585 924,373 16,521 4,137 12,384

Lincoln—08—NM ............ 220,895 445,346 9,847 2,089 7,758

Prescott—09—AZ ............ 62,730 127,485 2,447 231 2,216

Santa Fe—10—NM ......... 859,452 1,473,313 29,960 4,040 25,920

Tonto—12—AZ ................ 190,157 291,513 5,782 812 4,970

Arizona Total ............... 2,534,626 4,121,010 94,956 13,237 81,719

New Mexico Total ........ 3,247,622 4,489,084 97,758 13,335 84,423

Region-3 Total .............. 5,782,248 8,610,094 192,714 26,572 166,142 

REGION 3—TIMBER HARVEST/REMOVAL VOLUMES (MMBF) 

Forest FY 

1994 

FY 

1995 

FY 

1996 

FY 

1997 

FY 

1998 

FY 

1999 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Apache-Sitgreaves .......... 35.9 27.0 12.5 20.9 11.7 22.0 14.9 8.5 8.4 14.8

Carson ............................. 5.0 5.4 2.7 3.7 6.3 11.9 8.4 12.7 10.5 11.4

Cibola .............................. 3.4 4.7 2.1 7.2 1.8 2.7 3.3 3.9 5.4 4.4

Coconino .......................... 30.9 19.9 10.0 15.0 5.3 6.3 10.4 9.7 16.8 9.5

Coronado ......................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Gila .................................. 14.3 6.7 2.3 2.1 1.0 2.7 2.0 3.0 2.6 3.9

Kaibab ............................. 7.7 13.5 5.0 18.0 1.8 17.5 12.3 16.6 6.3 3.7

Lincoln ............................ 3.3 3.6 1.3 2.8 1.5 2.4 1.6 2.7 8.1 4.1

Prescott ........................... 4.1 3.3 2.2 4.9 0.3 2.6 2.9 3.3 1.9 3.7

Santa Fe .......................... 2.9 10.0 6.3 6.7 4.1 13.0 6.4 7.1 5.8 15.2

Tonto ............................... 7.8 5.3 1.7 1.7 1.1 2.5 3.1 2.9 4.9 2.3

Regional Total ............. 115.5 99.6 46.3 83.2 34.9 83.7 65.4 70.5 70.8 73.2 

GREEN TIMBER SALE PROGRAM VS. BIOMASS PROGRAM

Question 41. Chief, when I look at the table on page 22 of the Highlights Section 

of your budget justification document, it shows that the expected National Forest 

Fund Receipts through 2007 will be flat. My staff tells me that is an indication of 

a timber sale program that is shifting from larger material to much smaller stem 

material that is of low value. Is that basically correct? 

Answer. Yes, however the shift has already occurred, and explains the decline in 

revenues from before FY 1998 to the lower levels shown for FY 2001 and later 

years. The flat revenue projection from the present to 2007 is considered to be in 

part due to lower market values for the products we anticipate selling. 

Question 42. What have you done to send that message to the Forest Service employees that work at the Forest and District levels? 

Chief we need your leadership and we need you to make it clear to your agency 

and the American Public that our national forests are not sustainable unless we 

manage them and a forest products industry is critical to your being able to accomplish that. 

As far as I am concerned, the two mills down on the Lincoln are the ‘‘canary in 

the mine’’. I hope that you will do everything in your power to ensure that the air 

that our canary needs does not go bad on your watch. 

Answer. Accomplishment of hazardous fuels treatments will be best accomplished 

through the coordinated application of hazardous fuels reduction projects, stewardship contracting, and other vegetative management projects, including timber harvests. 

Active forest management is an essential component of sustaining the health of 

our National Forests. We are also very concerned that we have the full range of 

tools available to address healthy forest restoration issues. However, market forces 

in the private sector play an even greater role than government actions. Mindful 

55

of market realities, we are working strategically to do what we can to assure that 

the timber sale program remains a viable tool to achieve our goals and objectives. 

Question 43. What steps are you prepared to direct the Lincoln National Forest 

and other Forests in Region Three to contribute to a wood supply that will help both 

maintain a viable forest products industry in New Mexico? 

New Mexico and Arizona are in the dire situation they are because past administrations didn’t think maintaining a forest products industry was critical to their 

ability to manage the forests. Now we know better, but don’t seem to be able to reverse course. Answer. We are managing our program to utilize the existing industry 

and help create new industry through becoming a significant provider of wood. We 

already have a new post and pole operation starting in Raton, NM next month. We 

are developing a 10-year vegetation treatment schedule that will show how much 

and where we have wood products of differing sizes to be made available. This 

should enable industries to start up, although these industries will need to be based 

on smaller average tree sizes than our industries of the past. We have several businesses and communities looking at New Mexico for biomass plants, small-log sawmills, and even one pulp mill. We are also using the new tools provided by the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act, categorical exclusions, and the stewardship contracting authority to help move these projects along. 

Question 44. New Mexico and Arizona are in the dire situation they are because 

past administrations didn’t think maintaining a forest products industry was critical 

to their ability to manage the forests. Now we know better, but don’t seem to be 

able to reverse course. 

How much timber do you intend to offer next year? 

Answer. Nationally, the Forest Service plans to offer 4,585,279 CCF (about 2.3 billion board feet) of timber volume for sale in FY 2005. 

Question 45. How much of that timber will be salvage and how much will be green 

timber? 

Answer. Of the total volume to be offered in FY 2005, 3,385,279 CCF (about 1.7 

billion board feet) is planned to be from the regular program and 1,200,000 CCF 

(about 0.600 billion board feet) from the salvage program. 

NUMBER OF TIMBER SALE CLAIMS AND COSTS

Over the last decade there have been a tremendous number of timber sales that 

have been cancelled and delayed. Many of these cancellations and terminations have 

resulted in claims against the government. Some of these claims have taken years 

to settle or resolve. 

Question 46. I would like a list of each timber sale cancellation, by year, beginning 

in 1985 and data on whether the cancellation or delay resulted in a claim by the 

timber sale purchaser. Please group these sales and claims by National Forest. 

Answer. The Forest Service has been compiling data on timber sale claims in four 

categories that address the origin or basis for the claim as follows: T&E Species; 

Resources; Contract Disputes; and Other. The data do not identify whether the 

claim was the result of a delay or cancellation. The data also do not include sales 

that were delayed or cancelled if no claim was subsequently filed. There is no reliable data prior to 1992, and records were last updated in 2001. None of the standard timber sale databases specifically track claims, so this information cannot be 

quickly accessed. By the end of May we can provide a list of sales from FY 1992-

2003 that had claims filed based on a delay or cancellation, grouped by region and 

forest. 

Question 47. We would also like information about the dollar amount of the initial 

claim, if the claim resulted in a settlement through negotiation or if the settlement 

was directed by a court or the court of claims. If the claim was dropped please also 

include that in the data base. 

Answer. By the end of May the Forest Service can provide a list of timber sale 

claims from FY 1992-2003 with the following information: the dollar amount of the 

initial claim; the amount paid to date; when the claim was paid; and amounts that 

are still in dispute. Forest Service data generally do not identify whether the 

amount paid was the result of a negotiated settlement or a court order, so that information cannot be provided. 

Question 48. Additionally, for each claim, please display when the claim was settled and paid out and how much of the payment to the purchaser was paid on the 

principal of the claim and how much was paid in interest charges on each claim. 

Answer. This cannot be provided, as the Forest Service has not routinely tracked 

interest charges separately from the principal amount paid. 

56

OTHER PROGRAMS

Question 49. I see that you are once again recommending cutting deferred mainte- nance from the FY 2004 level of $31 million down to $10 million. Yet you are recommending a $40 million increase for the Forest Legacy program. Why? 

Answer. Deferred maintenance is an important concern to the agency and will 

continue to be accomplished using our regular Capital Improvement and Maintenance appropriations for Facilities, Roads, and Trails; the 10-percent Roads & Trails 

fund (Expenditure from Receipts Act of 1913); and from a portion of Recreation Fee 

Demo site receipts. 

We will continue to focus on our most critical backlog maintenance needs, including public and employee health and safety and critical resource problems, such as 

restoring fish passage. In addition, we are continuing to implement strategies to 

help reduce the rate of backlog maintenance growth. 

Question 50. Why do you recommend that we continue to spend $5 million on international forestry and $52 million for land acquisition when you won’t fund the 

maintenance of the land and buildings you are entrusted to manage? Answer. The FY 2005 President’s Budget proposes $10 million for deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements. This funding level will allow the agency 

to focus on high-priority maintenance, particularly those addressing critical health 

and safety mission-critical needs. The FY 2005 President’s Budget includes a legislative proposal that would authorize the Secretary to sell or transfer, at fair market 

value, administrative sites and facilities, and appurtenant administrative land, in 

accordance with Federal appraisal standards. The proceeds from these sales would 

be made available for acquiring or developing land and improvements for administrative purposes, thereby reducing backlogs while improving efficiencies and reducing indirect costs. International forestry successfully coordinates habitat management for migratory species, collaborates on prevention of invasive species introductions and promotes forest sustainability in other countries. The land acquisition program identifies and acquires lands, waters, and interests in lands to the National 

Forest System. These lands or interests are identified vital for resource protection 

or enhancement, recreational development, or are directed by the agency to acquire 

by legislation. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CAMPBELL

Question 1. Is the increase in the ‘‘green’’ timber sale program adequate to implement management programs in the forest plans, including newly revised forest 

plans such as White River, Routt, Rio Grande and Arapaho Roosevelt National Forests? 

Answer. Yes. The additional funding will help us achieve the expectations for the 

forest products programs on the national forests, including those with newly revised 

Forest Plans. 

Question 2. Timber program unit costs (costs/CCF) have risen dramatically over 

the past 5 years (see chart). What steps are you taking and what direction are you 

giving to reduce costs? 

a. How much do you expect the new Categorical Exclusions to reduce costs? 

Answer. A key step being taken to reduce timber program unit costs is to encourage the field units to take full advantage of tools provided under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the new stewardship contracting authorities, and administrative actions under the Healthy Forests Initiative. It will also include the use of categorical exclusions (CEs), revised administrative appeal procedures, and more timely salvage sales. We will have a better idea after this field season as to how much 

categorical exclusions are used and what cost savings might come from them. We 

are encouraging all field units to use CEs where possible and have developed web 

sites to help them understand where and how to use them. 

Question 3. I’ve heard that some Forests have virtually no funds in their Salvage 

Sale Fund. Are you aware of that problem? Has lack of Salvage Sale Funds limited 

implementation of salvage programs on some Forests? 

Answer. Yes, we are aware of this. A number of national forests have not adequately managed Salvage Sale funds to plan and implement needed salvage sales. 

These forests are located in the Rocky Mountains, Southwest, Pacific Northwest, 

and California Regions. 

To date, Salvage Sale funding levels have not prevented any forest from preparing 

eligible salvage sale projects. The forests and regions are encouraged to shift timber 

sale offer volume from salvage to the regular timber sale program and use appropriated funds to prepare qualified salvage sales. 

a. Are you taking steps to restore Salvage Sale Fund balances on those Forests? 

Are you also taking steps to ensure that the Salvage Sale Funds are managed like 

57

a business so that the funds are not depleted and limit implementation salvage programs? Do you need help from Congress? 

Answer. The Forest Service strives to maintain a sustained Salvage Sale Fund 

balance equal to one hundred fifty percent of the annual program need. We feel that 

this amount provides the agency with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to 

catastrophic salvage events, such as wildfires, hurricanes, drought, insect outbreaks 

and disease outbreaks. 

The Washington Office continues to encourage field units to manage opportunities 

for Salvage Sale collections to ensure future needs are covered. We continue to monitor the salvage sale program so that we may respond appropriately as the situation 

changes. 

Question 4. Would you explain the relative forest growth on the national forests 

compared to the amount of harvest? (see chart) If growth exceeds harvest by a wide 

margin, doesn’t that suggest that the forests that are already over-stocked and overcrowded will become more over-stocked and over-crowded and that there is no end 

in sight to the fire and insect epidemic problems? 

Answer. The fact that growth exceeds removals and mortality does not indicate 

that all areas of the forests are overstocked. However, it does mean that there is 

an increase in biomass, which may or may not indicate problems in the future. It 

remains for our current and future treatments to bring forests into ecologically sustainable conditions and keep them there, which will require varying treatments depending upon forest type, the amount of growth that is occurring, and the forest 

conditions that are desired. 

Question 5. There is only one large sawmill in Colorado, and I understand other 

States have similarly limited forest industry infrastructure. I’ve heard various Forest Service staff discuss the need for forest industry infrastructure, and would like 

to know if you mean that, and what you are doing in this budget proposal to ensure 

that States like Colorado don’t lose any more of our forest products companies. 

Answer. Forest industry infrastructure is needed for processing timber and other 

non-merchantable material that need to be removed from forests to maintain the 

forests in a healthy condition, and also supports biomass processing plants that 

produce electricity or other products. In addition to significant market forces in the 

private sector, the reduction in the amount of timber supply from national forests 

over the past decade has been a factor in private industry’s decision to close or move 

infrastructure capacity to other locations. Accordingly, the Forest Service cannot 

provide assurances on efforts that largely rely upon the business judgment decisions 

that private sector firms deem to meet their best interest. This budget proposal has 

funds that will treat a sufficient quantity of hazardous fuels to potentially attract 

industry into areas that are deficient in infrastructure. 

Increasing the capacity of rural communities to use forest products is important. 

The Forest Service recognizes that by eliminating the Economic Action Programs 

there will be an impact on how agency services are provided to rural communities. 

The 2005 President’s Budget does provide indirect benefits to communities in many 

other ways. For example:

• The President’s Management Initiatives call for significant increases in contracting that will benefit local businesses. • USDA’s Rural Development programs can address priority needs in rural areas 

via several programs. The programs can assist forest-based industries. Here are 

some options:

• Business and Industry guaranteed loans—Provides up to 90 percent guarantee of a loan made by a commercial lender for agricultural enterprises. The 

business applying for the loan must already have strong equity and collateral. 

• Rural Business Enterprise Grants—Provides grants to public institutions to 

assist agricultural business. Grants do not go directly to businesses. 

• Intermediary Relending Program—Provides grants for intermediaries to 

relend through an adequately secured loan for new agricultural businesses, 

and expansion of those existing businesses unable to obtain a conventional 

loan. 

• Rural Business Opportunity Grants—Promotes sustainable economic development in rural communities with exceptional needs such as natural disasters, 

structural changes, and persistent poverty or population decline. Provides 

grants for economic planning, business assistance, and training to obtain specific USDA-RD program funding. 

• Cooperative Development Grants—Grants are available for cooperative development to establish and operate centers for cooperative development.

One of the tools with the greatest promise is the stewardship contracting authority, which allows for longer term contracts and can attract investors who need a 

58

greater commitment of supply than they have had in the past. The National Forests 

on the front range of Colorado are planning stewardship contracting sales that may 

have the potential to attract industry and the infrastructure necessary to handle the 

material that will be offered under these contracts. 

Two new categorical exclusions (CE’s) have been developed jointly with the Department of the Interior under the auspices of the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI). 

One of these applies to hazardous fuels reduction; the other applies to post-fire rehabilitation and restoration activities. Three additional CEs were developed by the 

Forest Service, apart from the HFI, and are applicable to small timber harvest 

projects: live tree removal, salvage harvest, & harvest to prevent the spread of insects & disease. The new CEs will allow for relatively limited, non-controversial 

projects to proceed without extensive documentation, although CEs (of any type) can 

be applied only where there are no extraordinary circumstances; i.e. projected adverse effects on sensitive resources. A level of inventory and (in some cases) consultation regarding sensitive resources is needed to determine whether or not extraordinary circumstances apply. 

The National Forests in Colorado plan to offer 104,699 CCF (about 52.4 million 

board feet—MMBF) of timber volume in FY 2004. Forest industries purchased an 

average of 57,926 CCF (about 29 MMBF) of forest products annually during the 

1999-2001 period. 

The proposal to move funding for the Hazardous Fuels program into the National 

Forest System (NFS) is consistent with the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative and 

the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. It enhances consideration of the effects of all 

vegetative management treatments upon the condition class of NFS resources. The 

proposal will allow managers to consider in a quantifiable, systematic manner the 

relative costs and benefits of proposed projects upon wildfire risk reduction and 

other land resources management objectives. 

Question 6. There are two small forest products companies west of Durango that 

use aspen to make tongue and groove paneling and excelsior. The San Juan NF forest plan allows 6 million board feet per year of aspen sales, but the San Juan NF 

didn’t sell any aspen sales in FY 02 or FY 03 because they were fighting fires and 

working on salvage sales. Now the salvage sale has been held up by a court injunction. These are small companies that hire a lot of minority employees and are very 

important in those communities. Can you tell me if this budget proposal has enough 

funds for aspen sales from the San Juan NF? 

Answer. The San Juan NF plans offer 20,561 CCF (about 10.3 million board 

feet—MMBF) of forest products this year. Aspen is included in a portion of those 

sales. In FY 2005, about 14.8 MMBF is on the 5-year action plan, with 4.4 MMBF 

being aspen. 

Question 7. I understand you want to remove smaller, less valuable trees in some 

cases to meet your management objectives. Will those trees be in addition to some 

of the larger trees that need to be managed to achieve your forest plan management 

objectives? Are you coordinating your plans with forest products companies to make 

sure that your plans are feasible and there is at least a partial match with their 

business plans? 

Answer. The smaller, less valuable trees that will need to be removed to achieve 

forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction objectives are in addition to the 

larger, saw-timber trees that are part of our normal timber sale program. Both individual Forests and the Regional Office staff communicate regularly with forest products industry representatives, along with non-traditional organizations that may 

have an interest in the smaller diameter material, to keep them informed of 

planned projects and forest management. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWKSI

Question 1. What is the effect of the exemption of the Tongass National Forest 

from the restrictions in the Road less Rule in terms of the Forest’s ability to produce 

enough timber to support the remaining family-owned mills in Alaska? 

Answer. The exemption will allow the Forest to implement the 1997 Tongass 

Land Resource Management Plan, which supports the existing forest products infrastructure. 

Question 2. How much economically viable timber is currently under contract in 

the Alaska Region, for which there is a contractual requirement for domestic processing within the State and what is your funding request in the ’05 budget to continue such projects? 

Answer. If the purchasers elect to cancel all 20 of the qualifying timber sales 

under Section 339 of PL 108-108, the remaining volume under contract on the 

Tongass National Forest will be 47 million board feet (MMBF) of economical timber 

59

for domestic processing. All timber sale contracts in the Alaska Region require domestic processing unless the Regional Forester determines that the timber is surplus to the needs of Alaska processors. The FY 2005 estimated allocation for the 

Alaska Region is $25,515,000. 

Question 3. Why is this number so low? 

Answer. Due to litigation, 270 million board feet (MMBF) of economically viable 

timber is currently not available for offer. 

Question 4. Last year’s harvest level was 51 MMBF. (Under TLMP, the annual 

harvest permissible is 267 MMBF (per year), on average over 10 years). Clearly 50 

MMBF under contract is insufficient to meet industry demand. What is the Forest 

Service’s position on what this amount should be and why? 

Answer. The Alaska Region is striving to have a 3-year supply of economically 

viable timber under contract. 

Question 5. Is this 3 year supply of 450 MMBF enough to support what is left 

of the limited timber industry in Southeast? 

Answer. The 3-year supply level represents the Forest Service estimate of current 

demand. Private sector actions and market forces will determine how industry will 

respond to changing market conditions. 

Question 6. Please explain this discrepancy between your demand calculation and 

calculations supported by the timber industry of Alaska. 

Answer. The timber industry’s demand calculation is based on a fully integrated 

industry that is capable of efficiently utilizing all grades and species of timber. 

Question 7. Why is the Forest Service request declining in this important area of 

the agency? 

Answer. The FY 2005 President’s Budget request for the Forest Products budget 

line item has increased $9,284,000 over the FY 2004 enacted level. In addition the 

regular volume planned for offer is estimated to be 3,385,279 hundred cubic feet 

(1,693 MMBF) which is an increase of 374,594 CCF (188 MMBF) from FY 2004 

planned levels. 

Question 8. What are these ‘‘duplicative’’ programs in USDA that you state address the goals of the State and Private Forestry Program and what do they do to 

help private landowners, such as those in Alaska? 

Answer. USDA’s Rural Development programs, though focusing primarily on agriculture, could also help forest-based industries and address the needs in rural areas, 

including those in Alaska. For those places that already have adequate community 

capacity to compete for loans and grants, USDA’s Rural Development programs can 

address the needs via the following programs:

• Business and Industry guaranteed loans - Provides up to 90 percent guarantee 

of a loan made by a commercial lender for agricultural enterprises. The business applying for the loan must already have strong equity and collateral. 

• Rural Business Enterprise Grants - Provides grants to public institutions to assist agricultural business. Grants do not go directly to businesses. 

• Intermediary Relending Program - Provides grants for intermediaries to re-lend 

through an adequately secured loan for new agricultural businesses, and expansion of those existing businesses unable to obtain a conventional loan. 

• Rural Business Opportunity Grants - Promotes sustainable economic development in rural communities with exceptional needs such as natural disasters, 

structural changes, and persistent poverty or population decline. Provides 

grants for economic planning, business assistance, and training to obtain specific USDA-RD program funding. 

• Cooperative Development Grants - Grants are available for cooperative development to establish and operate centers for cooperative development.

FLEP activities qualify for other Forest Service, Federal or state conservation program support. As of 2004, USDA alone administered 23 programs that give agricultural land users financial incentives to apply conservation measures to their farms, 

ranches, and forests. These programs are included in the following table:

USDA Bureau Program Resource conservation issues 

FSA ................... Emergency Conservation Program.Land damaged by wind erosion 

and other disasters, including drought.

FSA ................... Soil and Water Conservation 

Loan Program.

Conserve, improve, and sustain 

natural resources and environment.

60

USDA Bureau Program Resource conservation issues 

FSA ................... Conservation Reserve Program Wildlife habitat. 

Tree planting. 

Enhance forest and wetland resources.

FSA ................... Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.Improves water quality by establishing vegetative buffers, 

including trees.

FSA ................... Farm Debt Cancellation—Conservation Easements Program.Environmentally sensitive 

lands for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes.

FSA ................... Integrated Farm Management 

Option.

Conserving soil, water, and related resources, including forests.

FS ..................... Forest Legacy Program ............. Conservation easements for forests threatened with conversion to non-forest uses.

NRCS ................ Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program.

Conservation practices that reduce salt levels in the Colorado River.

NRCS ................ Rural Clean Water Program .... Rural non-point source pollution control.

NRCS ................ Small Watershed Program ....... Improve water quality in small 

watersheds.

NRCS ................ Emergency Wetland Reserve 

Program.

Restore wetlands function.

NRCS ................ Water Bank Program ................ Conserve water and wildlife 

habitat.

NRCS ................ Wetlands Reserve Program ...... Range land, pasture, or production forest land where the 

hydrology has been significantly degraded and can be 

restored.

NRCS ................ Agricultural Management Assistance.Plant trees for windbreaks. 

Integrated pest management.

NRCS ................ Conservation Innovation 

Grants.

Water. 

Soil. 

Air. 

Grazing Land and forest 

health. 

Wildlife habitat.

NRCS ................ Conservation Security Program Maintain and enhance the condition of natural resources, 

including forests.

NRCS ................ Emergency Watershed Protection.Watershed protection.

61

USDA Bureau Program Resource conservation issues 

NRCS ................ Environmental Quality Incentive Program.Prescribed burning.Planting. 

Fencing. 

Riparian forest buffers. 

Firebreaks. 

Forest site preparation. 

Tree/shrub enhancement. 

Forest trail and landings. 

Forest stand improvement.

NRCS ................ Watershed Protection and 

Flood Prevention..

Water needs for fish, wildlife, 

and forest-based industries.

NRCS ................ Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.Conservation easements.

NRCS ................ Grasslands Reserve Program ... Conservation easements.

NRCS ................ Soil and Water Conservation 

Assistance.

Soil, water, and related natural 

resources, including forest 

lands.

NRCS ................ Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program.

Conservation practices that 

benefit habitat of threatened 

and endangered species, including forested lands. 

The General Accounting Office, in its report entitled Federal Budget: Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds (GAO-03-922T June 18, 

2003), stated:

Policymakers and managers need to look at ways to improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs and specific tax expenditures. Even where we agree on the goals of programs, numerous opportunities exist to streamline, target and consolidate to improve their delivery. This means looking at program consolidation, at overlap and at fragmentation.

In addition to the 23 other conservation incentive programs within USDA alone, 

the FY 2005 President’s Budget includes $129.5 million for the Department of the 

Interior’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative. That amount is a 25 percent increase 

over FY 2004. Because FLEP is duplicative of services provided by other programs 

of USDA and DOI and countless other programs of other Federal agencies, States 

or non-government organizations, the proposal is fully consistent with GAO’s suggestion. 

Question 9. The Economic Action Program of your agency’s State & Private Forestry Program helps rural communities, such as those found in my home state of 

Alaska to build skills, networks, and strategies to address social, environmental, 

and economic changes. This program also helps businesses develop and market new 

products for forest-based goods & services, such as biomass energy. I am particularly concerned as to why this program is zeroed out in the FY ’05 budget? 

Answer. For the third year, the President has proposed eliminating Economic Action Programs. The President’s Budget focuses on USDA’s rural development programs and in other Forest Service programs that both directly and indirectly assist 

communities. USDA’s rural development programs are mentioned in the previous 

question. Forest Service programs that benefit communities include forest health 

management, state and volunteer fire assistance, forest stewardship, urban and 

community forestry, and the hazardous fuels reduction program. 

Questions 10 and 11. The Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), which was 

part of the 2002 Farm Bill is an important program to the states. As you know, this 

program provides for technical, educational and cost-share assistance to promote the 

sustainability of non-industrial private forests. For example, in Alaska, in FY 2003, 

Alaska received $830,640 for implementation of this program, which helped native 

corporations and individual landowners to do reforestation after beetle kill, fuel reduction work and wildlife habitat improvements on their lands. 

It appears that the funding history of the FLEP has been erratic. The Farm Bill 

authorized $100 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation over a 5-year peVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
62

riod ending with FY 2007. A total of $20 million was used for landowner cost-share 

and technical assistance in FY 2003, its first year of implementation. In FY 2003, 

$50 million of the remaining FLEP funds were transferred from FLEP to cover Forest Service wildfire suppression costs. Congress repaid $10 million to the FLEP account in the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations Bill, leaving $40 million remaining in 

the account. The FY 2005 Budget now proposes to use the remaining $40 million 

as off-sets for other higher priority programs. 

Can you explain to me what these ‘‘higher priority programs are’’ and why the 

Administration is choosing to not use the remaining $40 million from the previous 

fiscal year for the FLEP Program? 

Answer. The President’s budget balances competing needs and priorities, and reflects in its totality the priorities of the President. There is no specific linkage between the cancellation of FLEP funds and the funding of other priorities. 

FLEP activities qualify for other Forest Service, Federal or state conservation program support. As of 2004, USDA alone administered 23 programs that give agricultural land users financial incentives to apply conservation measures to their farms, 

ranches, and forests. These programs are included in the following table:

USDA Bureau Program Resource conservation issues 

FSA ................... Emergency Conservation Program.Land damaged by wind erosion 

and other disasters, including drought.

FSA ................... Soil and Water Conservation 

Loan Program.

Conserve, improve, and sustain 

natural resources and environment.

FSA ................... Conservation Reserve Program Wildlife habitat. 

Tree planting. 

Enhance forest and wetland resources.

FSA ................... Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.Improves water quality by establishing vegetative buffers, 

including trees.

FSA ................... Farm Debt Cancellation—Conservation Easements Program.Environmentally sensitive 

lands for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes.

FSA ................... Integrated Farm Management 

Option.

Conserving soil, water, and related resources, including forests.

FS ..................... Forest Legacy Program ............. Conservation easements for forests threatened with conversion to non-forest uses.

NRCS ................ Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program.

Conservation practices that reduce salt levels in the Colorado River.

NRCS ................ Rural Clean Water Program .... Rural non-point source pollution control.

NRCS ................ Small Watershed Program ....... Improve water quality in small 

watersheds.

NRCS ................ Emergency Wetland Reserve 

Program.

Restore wetlands function.

NRCS ................ Water Bank Program ................ Conserve water and wildlife 

habitat.

63

USDA Bureau Program Resource conservation issues 

NRCS ................ Wetlands Reserve Program ...... Range land, pasture, or production forest land where the 

hydrology has been significantly degraded and can be 

restored.

NRCS ................ Agricultural Management Assistance.Plant trees for windbreaks. 

Integrated pest management.

NRCS ................ Conservation Innovation 

Grants.

Water. 

Soil. 

Air. 

Grazing Land and forest 

health. 

Wildlife habitat.

NRCS ................ Conservation Security Program Maintain and enhance the condition of natural resources, 

including forests.

NRCS ................ Emergency Watershed Protection.Watershed protection.

NRCS ................ Environmental Quality Incentive Program.Prescribed burning.Planting. 

Fencing. 

Riparian forest buffers. 

Firebreaks. 

Forest site preparation. 

Tree/shrub enhancement. 

Forest trail and landings. 

Forest stand improvement.

NRCS ................ Watershed Protection and 

Flood Prevention..

Water needs for fish, wildlife, 

and forest-based industries.

NRCS ................ Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.Conservation easements.

NRCS ................ Grasslands Reserve Program ... Conservation easements.

NRCS ................ Soil and Water Conservation 

Assistance.

Soil, water, and related natural 

resources, including forest 

lands.

NRCS ................ Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program.

Conservation practices that 

benefit habitat of threatened 

and endangered species, including forested lands. 

The General Accounting Office, in its report entitled Federal Budget: Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds (GAO-03-922T June 18, 

2003), stated:

Policymakers and managers need to look at ways to improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs and specific tax expenditures. Even where we agree on the goals of programs, numerous opportunities exist to streamline, target and consolidate to improve their delivery. This means looking at program consolidation, at overlap and at fragmentation.

In addition to the 23 other conservation incentive programs within USDA alone, the FY 2005 President’s Budget includes $129.5 million for the Department of the 

Interior’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative. That amount is a 25 percent increase 

over FY 2004. Because FLEP is duplicative of services provided by other programs 

of USDA and DOI and countless other programs of other Federal agencies, States 

or non-government organizations, the proposal is fully consistent with GAO’s suggestion. 

64

Question 12. It was mentioned at this hearing that funding is going to the development of new manufacturing facilities in Seward and Haines. Through which program is this funding being generated and how much funding has been sent to Alaska? 

Answer. In 2002, Husky Lumber of Nikiski (on the Kenai Peninsula formerly lo- cated in Seward) received a grant of $186,000 through Forest Service Economic Recovery Program (Forest Products Conservation & Recycling dry kiln earmark) to finance building two lumber mills and a steam-powered kiln dryer. In 2001, the community of Haines received a $10,500 grant through the Forest 

Service Economic Recovery Program to develop its industrial park marketing program. 

In 2001, SuperNatural Teas of Haines received a USDA Cooperative Research Education and Extension Service grant of $25,000 through the University of Alaska 

Southeast for equipment to process and dry tea from wild plants gathered locally. In 2001, Icy Straits Lumber of Hoonah received $400,000 in financing through 

USDA Rural Development (Intermediary Relending Program) that leveraged a Forest Service Economic Action Program (FPC&R dry kiln earmark) dry kiln grant 

($549,000), commercial bank financing, and state funds to purchase a dry kiln and 

related resaw equipment. 

Discussions in Seward have focused on potential USDA Rural Development value 

added grants to aid in the establishment of a wood processing facility (oriented 

strand board, veneer, press board) if an eligible entity would apply. 

Question 13. What are these particular facilities in Haines and Seward and what 

is it that they are intending to do in terms of manufacturing? 

Answer. Husky Lumber has two sawmills and a kiln dryer with a capacity of processing about 8 million board feet of lumber per year. According to the general manager, Husky can supply Alaska and the Lower 48 with dimensional lumber for 

buildings, logs for homes, tongue-and-groove paneling and decking, log siding and 

cants, and large dimension materials for oil fields. At capacity, the mill will employ 

about 30 people. 

Question 14. What additional accomplishments are required on the Kenai Peninsula in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) via mechanical treatment, prior to the 

commencement of the cheaper per acre treatments via prescribed fire? 

Answer. In order for the Chugach National Forest to begin using prescribed fire 

on 7,100 acres to restore spruce bark beetle impacted land, approximately 1,300 

acres and 33 miles of power-line or highway right-of-way first need mechanical 

treatment. These areas are a mix of state, private, borough, and National Forest 

System lands. 

In order for all landowners on the Kenai Peninsula to accomplish about 26,000 

acres of prescribed fire, approximately 65,000 acres of mechanical treatment would 

be needed on all state, private, borough, and federal lands. 

Question 15. Does the President’s budget fulfill this need for Alaska (fuels treatment on the Kenai)? 

Answer. Yes, the President’s budget fulfills this need. 

Question 16. In the FY 2005 Budget Request, there is a decrease in the State Fire 

Assistance Program (a difference of $16,818 million from ’04 - ’05). This Program 

is critical to the work being done on the Kenai Peninsula in my state. Why this decrease? 

Answer. The President’s Budget continues to support the work of communities 

and States in reducing the threat of wildland fire, but at a reduced level over previous years. While direct funding in State Fire Assistance under Wildland Fire, Operations, has decreased, funding is available in other appropriated areas and indirect support functions can be found in other areas of the Presidents Budget. This 

assistance includes:

• $25 million in appropriated State Fire Assistance funds in the State and Private Forestry appropriation. 

• An increase of more than $63 million for National Fire Plan programs. This includes a $32.8 million increase in Hazardous Fuel Reduction to continue to 

work with communities and organizations in planning treatments to reduce the 

risk of wildland fire in high priority areas and the wildland-urban interface 

• Working cooperatively with States and communities by making leading-edge 

wildland fire management technology available. 

• Coordinating the use of the Federal Excess Personal Property program to assist 

state and local communities.

Question 17. The Rehabilitation and Restoration Program under the Wildland 

Fire Management Account is decreased by $3.9 million from the FY 04 level of $6.9 

million [a 57% decrease]. Can you explain this decrease? 

65

Answer. The President’s Budget proposes $3.0 million dollars in FY 05 for Rehabilitation and Restoration. Critical rehabilitation work not covered by the Fire Rehabilitation budget line item in the Wildland Fire Management appropriation will be 

addressed by utilizing regularly appropriated funds and carryover funds from prior 

years including any funds that were appropriated for repayment of funds transferred for fire suppression. The critical rehabilitation and restoration work will be 

funded from several of the various National Forest System budget line items, Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, as well as, from the Permanent Appropriations and Trust Funds. The $3.9 million decrease from the FY 2004 

enacted level is modest when compared to the $445 million in rehabilitation work 

that the Forest Service has estimated will be funded through regularly appropriated 

funds. 

Question 18. Why is only Title I of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act the only 

title being funded in the FY 2005 President’s Request and how much of this funding 

is ‘‘new money’’? 

Answer. The agency’s primary focus with regard to the Healthy Forest Initiative 

has been on reducing hazardous fuels to reduce the impacts of catastrophic wildfires 

on the environment and to reduce risks to communities. Therefore, the agency’s primary focus on implementing HFRA has been on Title I, including determining funding for FY 2005. Of the total Forest Service amount for Title I, approximately $38 

million ($33 million in hazardous fuels, $2 million in Forest Products, and $3 million research) is ‘‘new money’’. 

Question 19. Why isn’t the Biomass Title of HFRA being funded and seen as a 

priority in the President’s Budget? 

Answer. Title II of the HFRA has three components: (1) biomass use research, (2) 

rural revitalization technologies, and (3) utilization grants. The Agency deems the 

development of information and assistance to communities in the production and 

use of biomass to be a priority for sustainable management and economic sustainability. Examples of implementation include:

• The FY2004 Joint USDA/USDOE Solicitation for Proposals under the Biomass 

Research and Development Initiative was modified to include grant funding in 

the areas identified in Title II of HFRA. 

• FS R&D has a comprehensive program in forest biomass assessment, management, harvesting and recovery, utilization, processing, and marketing for HFRA 

Title II. 

• S&PF is emphasizing partnering with universities and USDA Extension Service 

and formalizing procedures for demonstrations within current programs to assist community-based enterprises. 

• The Forest Service has the grant authorities and programs in place to provide 

direct technical assistance and grants to individuals and entities to demonstrate 

commercial biomass utilization should such funds become available through 

Title II of the HFRA.

Question 20. The President’s FY 05 Request includes proposed budget reductions 

in virtually every area of the Wildland Fire Management Area except Fire Operations which is up $88.3 million over the FY 04 level of $597.1 million. Please explain these reductions and why. 

Answer. The President’s budget proposes an $88.2 million increase over the 2004 

request for Fire Operations Suppression. This request provides the 10-year average 

suppression cost, adjusted for inflation. 

In Other Operations, the Presidents Budget is an approximately $22 million increase over the 2004 request, and is approximately equal to the 2004 enacted level 

when adjusted for Emergency Appropriations, Hazardous Fuels and Joint Fire 

Sciences which were moved to other appropriations. 

Question 21. How much would it take to fully meet the road maintenance needs 

in the Alaska Region? 

Answer. The Alaska Region reports annual maintenance needs of $18.9 million. 

$1.6 million of these needs are reported to be ‘‘Critical’’. (Critical needs are those, 

which if not met, will constitute an immediate threat to health and safety, forest 

resources, or accomplishment of the agency mission.) 

Question 22. What is the funding request in the FY 2005 budget for road maintenance and what portion would be allocated to Alaska? 

Answer. The President’s budget proposes $227,906,000.00 for the road construction and maintenance budget line item. The Alaska Region’s estimated allocation 

would be $15,902,000. The line item is used for road maintenance, road decommissioning, and reconstruction and construction activities. Of this amount approximately $5 million is for road maintenance, and the remaining funds would be used 

for road decommissioning, and road reconstruction and construction. 

66

Question 23. It is my understanding that the funding to be allocated to Alaska 

is far below the needed amount to address road maintenance needs. Please explain 

this discrepancy. 

Answer. Agency-wide and regional budget requests are developed by forests 

through the Budget Formulation and Execution System (BFES) process. Working 

within regional constraints, each forest requests the level of funds within each program based on local priorities and needs. The Alaska Region’s level of requested 

road maintenance funding and the Forest Service agency-wide level of requested 

funding developed from BFES are below the amounts needed to address all of the 

road maintenance needs. The relative ratio of requested funding to needs in Alaska 

is similar to that of the other eight regions. 

Question 24. With a proposed $10.9 million reduction in Land Management Planning from the FY 2004 level of $70 million, I would like to know how the agency 

proposes to keep its 126 forest plans around the nation timely. With outdated forest 

plans being utilized by the agency, the chance for additional lawsuits grows exponentially. 

Answer. The current Forest Plan revision schedule reflects an FY 2004 workload 

that can be accomplished within funding levels received from Congress. It also contains a planned level of work and accomplishment whereby subsequent years will 

require substantially more funds. This schedule was developed based on the desire 

to facilitate effective management of the program by having only about one-third of 

the agency’s Forest Plans under revision at any one point in time (i.e., an even-flow 

of Plan revision initiations and completions). 

The revision schedule provided in the FY 2005 Budget Justification assumes efficiencies associated with the revised national forest planning rule and reflects program funding contained in the President’s Budget. 

The new planning rule being developed by the agency should also allow Forests 

to complete revisions more efficiently in future years. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. The Forest Service has asked that it be given permanent authority 

for its recreation forest fee program. Many Americans, however, are opposed to paying access fees that force them to pay for simply setting foot in certain forests. How 

will you balance service fees—such as parking fees or docking fees—with general 

access fees? How will you make certain that the visitors to our forests will see the 

local investment from their fees? 

Answer. Providing a fair and equitable program is a high priority for the Forest 

Service and the other agencies (Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service) participating in the Recreational Fee Demonstration 

Program. Through the Blueprint for Forest Service Recreation Fees (Blueprint), the 

Agency provides a consistent, national framework for identifying the types of recreation facilities and services for which fees will be charged. The Forest Service is not 

charging for general Forest access, viewing sunsets, or undeveloped areas with low 

use. Fees are charged in areas where higher levels of recreation development or 

services are provided. To ensure that we have a fair and equitable fee structure, 

each recreation fee demonstration project requires a business plan that includes an 

economic analysis which demonstrates that the proposed fees are comparable to 

those charged in the local/regional area. 

Accountability to the public is very important. In fact, one of the key lessons 

learned in the Fee Demo program is that fees are acceptable to people if they have 

a direct connection to a benefit. The Forest Service ensures that the public sees the 

result (benefit) of their fees through several methods. The results of recreation fees 

are visible at the site through new or rehabilitated facilities, the results of improved 

services (i.e., cleaner toilets, better trash removal), and better maintained trails. 

Some forests hold public meetings to describe how fees were spent in the past year 

and present projects for the coming year. We post annual accomplishments at several places including at the recreation fee site itself, visitor centers, and district or 

information offices to ensure that users are aware of where their fees are going. Forests also post accomplishment summaries on their websites so people can access the 

reports electronically as well as mail those accomplishment reports to those interested in recreation fees. Finally, the Forest Service prepares a joint Annual Report 

to Congress with Bureau of Land Management, Fish &Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service that accounts for recreation fees revenue and expenditures. The 

Annual Report to Congress is posted on the Forest Service website for electronic access (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/feedemo/index.shtml). 

Question 2. National Forests, National Parks, waterways and other recreational 

areas are often intertwined into a complex web of jurisdictions. With the Forest 

67

Service wanting to make its recreation fee program permanent, what will you do 

to work with other agencies to ensure that Americans are treated fairly and are not 

deterred from using our forests because of redundant fees from other agencies? 

Answer. The Forest Service is actively working with the Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service to ensure that the 

recreation fee program is fair and easy to use and understand. The Departments 

of the Interior and Agriculture have created the Interagency Fee Leadership Council 

(the Council) to oversee and coordinate the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

The Council is co-chaired by Mark Rey, Under Secretary of Agriculture and Lynn 

Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior and members include 

leaders of the agencies involved in the Fee Demo program. The Council develops 

joint goals and work plans to ensure that all agencies are working toward the common goal of providing a seamless recreation experience to the American public. 

Interagency objectives include 1) interagency pass policies; 2) reporting mechanisms; 

3) program evaluation; 4) feedback loops for adjusting policies and addressing problems; and 5) joint research on various aspects of the program. 

The participating agencies’ coordination is best visible in the development of interagency regional passes. Many regions are responding to the public’s need for simplified recreation passes by providing regional passes that cover participating Federal and State lands. An example is the Oregon/Washington Forest Pass that covers 

basic fees sites at Bureau of Land Management, National Forest Service, Fish & 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service lands as well as 6 Army Corps of Engineers sites, 26 Oregon State Parks, and 20 Washington State Parks. Another interagency regional pass is the Visit Idaho Playgrounds (VIP) pass. The VIP pass covers 

fees on State and Federal lands in Idaho. Regional passes are moving the Fee Demo 

program toward the Council’s stated goal of having one national interagency pass 

that covers all federal recreation land. 

The Forest Service developed and implemented a Blueprint for Forest Recreation 

Fees (Blueprint) in 2003. The Blueprint provides standardized criteria that each 

recreation fee site must meet before being included in the fee program. The Blueprint criteria are consistent with the other agencies’ recreation fee site criteria. To 

provide greater benefits and create an easier fee program for the public that reduces 

fee layering, the Blueprint allows greater acceptance of the Golden Eagle Passport, 

an interagency pass, at basic fee sites within the Forest Service. Not only is accepting the Golden Eagle Passport at more fee sites moving the program toward the 

goal of seamless service across Federal land, it also is easier for the public to understand and use. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR AKAKA

INVASIVE SPECIES

Question 1. I am glad to see a commendable increase of $7.3 million in funding 

for invasive species control methods in Forest and Rangeland Research. This is an 

ongoing battle for many States, and an important issue for the overall health of our 

forests and communities. 

The appropriation for Forest and Rangeland Research indicates that the invasive 

species program will expand research on controls for newly arrived insects and 

pathogens. The budget document also indicates that new biological controls for established invasive weeds will increase, along with methods to restore the sites once 

the invasive is controlled. 

As you know, the State of Hawaii is plagued by invasive weeds such as miconia 

and fountain grass. These and other invasives have been changing the hydrology of 

tropical forests by depleting the groundwater supply, preventing native plant 

growth, and leading to erosion. The erosion increases sedimentation in surface waters and smothers coral reefs. 

With regards to Hawaii, it is unclear as to what level of funding my State can 

look forward to for control of invasive weeds and insects. The Institute of Pacific 

Islands Forestry will have an increase, but is this the only invasives effort by the 

Forest Service that will affect Hawaii’s forests? To what specific pests, species, or 

pathogens will the funding be dedicated and how will the research help with Hawaii’s invasives problems? 

Answer. It is recognized that Hawaii is suffering from among the worst, if not the 

worst, invasive species problems of any state in the USA. The Institute of Pacific 

Islands Forestry, the Hawaiian Unit of the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station, is committed to researching ways to understand, prevent, and control invasive species in Hawaii and the Pacific. Hawaii will benefit from increased 

68

research support for invasive species research on several fronts. We will expand research to address the following important invasive species problems:

• Biological Control of such aggressive weeds as miconia, tibouchina, and strawberry guava. 

• Breaking the exotic grass/wildfire cycle particularly control of fountain grass. 

This cycle negatively affects human safety, property, rare and endangered species, and military training. 

• Watershed restoration as a means of controlling exotic species and protecting 

entire watersheds from the ridge to the reef. Here we will focus on restoring 

native forests in areas occupied by exotics or bare ground thereby decreasing 

sedimentation and damage to coral reef ecosystems.

Funding for the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund would enable the Forest 

Service to deal more effectively with unexpected introductions of invasive species to 

protect habitats and mitigate short-term effects. This fund is for rapid response to 

new invasive species or pest population increases of more than 150 percent from one 

year to the next. Funds may be used solely for: (1) rapid response to new introductions of non-native or invasive pests or pathogens which no previous Federal funding has been identified to address, or (2) for a limited number of instances in which 

any pest populations increase at over 150 percent of levels monitored for that species in the immediately preceding fiscal year and failure to suppress those populations would lead to a 10-percent increase of annual forest or stand mortality over 

ambient mortality levels in the affected area. This program supports the President’s 

Healthy Forests Initiative and serves as an agency initiative/focus item for addressing invasive species. 

Forest Service fire scientists, of the Riverside, California Research Station, are 

working in Hawaii to develop and refine fire behavior models to address Hawaii climates and fuels. They are developing local and regional short- and long-term fireweather forecasts to support models and long-range planning activities. Much of this 

work is done with the military in response to their issues with invasive grasses, fuel 

accumulations, and fire problems resulting from ignitions associated with training 

activities. 

The support given to the Institute of Pacific Island Forestry is important because 

it can be used to leverage additional funds for research on the control of exotic species and restoration of native ecosystems. We have successfully obtained additional 

funding for research from the National Science Foundation, the Joint Fire Sciences 

Program, the Nature Conservancy, and the International Programs of the Forest 

Service. This research has increased our research efforts on the ecological impacts, 

economic impacts, and approaches to control of exotic species. The leveraged funding 

has also facilitated the involvement of researchers and collaborators from other Federal Agencies, Universities, NGOs, and other Forest Service Research Stations. 

Question 2. I commend the Forest Service for its participation in the interagency 

budget crosscut on invasive species and its work with the National Invasive Species 

Council. However, I am disheartened to note that overall funding for invasive species-related projects has decreased since FY2003 from $88.3 million, to the present 

budget request of $67.9 million. 

I am interested in one change in particular. I see that a $10 million request has 

been added to the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, both in State and Private 

Forestry. The budget request mentions several non-native species or pathogens that 

would be addressed by this funding, such as emerald ash borer and sudden oak 

death; but none of these are of immediate concern in Hawaii. 

What is the rationale behind these choices? Were there specific states in mind 

when this request was being calculated? 

a. Does this mean less funding to combat other varieties of invasive species? 

Answer. The Emerging Pest and Pathogen Fund targets new, unanticipated, 

invasive pest and pathogens that may be introduced into the United States and is 

not intended for any particular species. The species mentioned are examples of the 

kind of pests and pathogens that would be appropriate. 

HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVES PROGRAM

Question 3. Title V of the Heathy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 authorizes up 

to $25 million dollars for the Healthy Forests Reserves Program. This program 

would help landowners restore forested habitats for rare and endangered species, 

through cost-sharing agreements and conservation easements. The State of Hawaii 

has completed the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Action Plan, and we have just 

completed an extensive series of critical habitat designations. Hawaii can easily benefit from this program. 

69

I do not find a request for Title V in the budget document. Can you provide any 

details on the status of Title V and your plans for a request next year? 

Answer. No funds are currently requested for Title V of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and it is too early to predict what will be requested in FY 2006. 

The Cooperative Lands line item, however, shows plans for FY 2005 to ‘‘provide 

technical assistance to Hawaii for management of non-native weed species as provided for by the Hawaii Tropical Forestry Recovery Act.’’ (Pages 7-8 and 7-9 of the 

Budget Justification) 

Question 4. The Cooperative Lands line item shows plans for FY2005 to ‘‘provide 

technical assistance to Hawaii for management of non-native weed species as provided for by the Hawaii Tropical Forestry Recovery Act.’’ (Pages 7-8 and 7-9) 

This is the same action described in FY2004, yet there are no specifics as to the 

level of funding or type of activity, and whether this would be an increase or a decrease from FY2004. 

Can you please provide information on the level of funding and type of activities 

planned for Cooperative Lands, in relation to the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery 

Act, and how it differs from the FY2004 activities and levels of funding? 

Answer. In 2004, $547,000 was sent to Hawaii and was distributed to Hawaii, 

Maui, Kauai, Oahu, and the Department of Forestry and Wildlife. A large portion 

of these funds went toward control of Miconia. Maui is also spending funds on 

pampass grass, ivy gourd, and giant reed. The remainder of the funds is being distributed to the Island Invasive Species Committee’s to treat outlying populations of 

species of limited distribution on the islands. Additionally, $155,000 was sent to the 

other Pacific Islands for managing invasive species. 

We expect approximately the same level of funding for the activities under the 

Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act in FY 2005. 

RESPONSES OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN

HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION NATIONWIDE

Question 1. California’s Fire Safe Councils, which receive funding from the national Fire Plan, help communities protect themselves from catastrophic fire. I understand that the fuel reduction efforts of the Lytle Creek Fire Safe Council were 

responsible in significant part for the Forest Service’s successful stand in the San 

Bernadino Mountains during the tragic California wildfires last fall. Is this correct? 

Answer. The efforts of the Lytle Creek Fire Safe Council were significant in saving much of the community of Lytle Creek during the Grand Prix Fire—in fact, 

parts of this area had been identified before the fire as areas that could not be defended due to the dense fuel loads. Because of the efforts of the Fire Safe Council 

in the months and years before the fire, the incident team re-evaluated the situation 

and determined that they could defend these homes, saving nearly all of them. 

These efforts highlight how local governments and private residents can take action 

‘‘close to home’’ to mitigate the risk of uncontrolled wildfire. 

Question 2. Despite the useful work of Fire Safe Councils, as I read the President’s proposed 2005 budget, funding for state, local, and volunteer fire assistance 

is cute by 42% ($147 million down to $85 million), while funding for Economic Action Grants to communities is zeroed out. How can this be justified given the importance of both Fire Safe Councils’ community planning efforts, and the need for state 

and local firefighters in initial attack and firefighting in the Wildland Urban Interface? 

Answer. The FY 2004 funding referenced in the question includes $24.8 million 

specifically for Southern California appropriated in the FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriation Act and all of the Economic Action Program funds, over half of which 

supports non-wildland fire activities. The President’s Budget continues to strongly 

support the work of communities and States in reducing the threat of wildland fire. 

The budget request for the National Fire Plan includes an overall increase of $63 

million for National Fire Plan programs (excluding the supplemental funds for 

Southern California). The increase in Hazardous Fuel Reduction (+$32.8 million) 

provides additional funds over the FY 2004 enacted level to continue to work with 

communities, other federal agencies, and organizations in planning treatments to reduce the risk of wildland fire in high priority areas including the wildland-urban 

interface. The increase in Fire Suppression Operations (+88.3 million) gives the Forest Service additional resources to suppress wildland fires that might threaten communities and other non-federal lands. The President’s Budget includes strong incentives for the use of local resources in hazardous fuels removal projects, and assumes 

expanded use of stewardship contracting to meet on-the-ground resource management objectives, including hazardous fuels reduction. The President’s Budget also 

70

provides for the expanded use of state and local firefighters and resources. In addition to the overall funding increase for the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service 

continues to work cooperatively with States and communities in numerous ways to 

protect communities, the public, and firefighters from wildland fires, including making available the latest leading-edge wildland fire management technology and coordinating the use of the Federal Excess Personal Property program. 

Question 3. The Administration has claimed the 2005 budget fully funds the Healthy Forests Restoration Act by increasing funding to $760 million. However, 

most of the supposed increase, with the exception of an addition $30 million for fuel 

reduction, appears to be made up by shifting funding from other existing programs, 

such as state and private forestry, fire science, and timber. How much of the $760 

million do you consider to be new money? Answer. The President’s Budget proposes $760 million for work to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest and rangeland health, as prescribed in the Healthy 

Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Other Forest Service 

programs besides the hazardous fuels reduction program contribute toward these 

goals. The Forest Service has not shifted funds from other programs. The amounts 

shown in programs other than hazardous fuels that support HFI and HFRA are 

those funds that contribute toward removing hazardous fuels and reducing risk of 

catastrophic wildfire. Of the total Forest Service amount for Title I, approximately 

$38 million ($33 million in hazardous fuels, $2 million in Forest Products, and $3 

million research) is ‘‘new money’’. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Question 4. Congressman Jerry Lewis and I obtained $240 million for hazardous 

fuel reduction and restoration of burned areas on federal and private lands in 

Southern California through the FY03 supplemental and the FY04 Omnibus and Interior Appropriations bill. It is critical that we reduce the terrible risk of catastrophic fire in the San Bernardino Mountains and surrounding areas. My question 

for you is whether this is enough funding for FY04 and FY05, or whether we need 

more. Answer. The current funding is adequate. 

Question 5. As I understand the proposed budget, funding for rehabilitation and restoration of burned over areas decreases to $3 million from $6.9 million in FY 

2004, a 57% decrease. Restoration is needed after any major fires. How do you propose to fund this needed restoration under your budget? 

Answer. The critical rehabilitation and restoration work will be funded from several of the National Forest System budget line items, Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance budget line items, as well as funds from the Permanent Appropriations 

& Trust Funds. Prior to the establishment of the Rehabilitation and Restoration 

budget line item following the extraordinary 2000 fire season, these accounts were 

the primary source of non-emergency rehabilitation and restoration funds. 

Some of the primary National Forest System budget line items include:

1. Vegetation & Watershed Management for seeding, plantings, reforestation, 

noxious weed prevention and treatments, soil stabilization, and other watershed 

rehabilitation and restoration treatments 

2. Landownership Management for reestablishing property boundaries

From the Capital Improvement and Maintenance appropriation:

1. Roads funds for repairing bridges, culverts, and erosion 

2. Trails funds to repair trails and reduce erosion 

3. Facilities budget line items will be used for reconstruction of minor recreation facilities, and other administrative facilities

And from the Permanent Appropriations and Trust Funds, such as,

1. Ten-percent Roads and Trails Fund 

2. Reforestation Trust Funds.

The decrease from the FY 2004 enacted level is modest when compared to the 

$445 million in rehabilitation work that the Forest Service has estimated will be 

funded through regularly appropriated funds. 

LAKE TAHOE

Question 6. For the first time in years, we have the possibility of fully funding 

the $30 million federal share of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, thanks to last 

year’s amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. My only 

concern is that I have heard rumors that the $30 million might be used to cover 

other Forest Service operations, effectively denying California the benefit of this adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 20, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\93-709 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
71

ditional funding. Can you assure me that the Forest Service’s base funding for Lake 

Tahoe and Region 5 will be maintained? 

Answer. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), as 

amended by P.L. 108-108 (FY 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act), will provide the $300 million authorized in the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 

(LTRA) to federal agencies over the next 8 years ($37.5 million per year). The funds 

from SNPLMA will be used to fully implement the LTRA, but they will not be used 

to cover other Forest Service base operations. Instead, the FY 2005 President’s 

Budget increases the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit’s (LTBMU) base budget 

by $2,715,000 through additional appropriated funds. This increase provides for approximately $7 million in base funding for the LTBMU. Base funding supports personnel and infrastructure and provides basic program support not included in LTRA 

funding, but which is needed to implement the LTRA. 

The Forest Service is committed to providing an adequate and stable base budget 

for the LTBMU for the long term beyond the LTRA. Through the combined funding 

from the SNPLMA and Forest Service appropriated funds, it will be possible to support both a stable base budget for the LTBMU and fully fund the LTRA. 

PRIORITIZING FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS

Question 7. Having accurate data about areas at risk is critical for effective fire 

management. The Condition Class Rating System, while useful at a broad scale, is 

not currently designed to be used at the local or regional level. In response, the Forest Service has launched the LANDFIRE program to improve and refine the condition class system. Recently, the National Association of Public Administration released a report entitled ‘‘Enhancing Hazard Mitigation Capacity,’’ as part of its ongoing review of wildland fire management. NAPA has recommended that the 

LANDFIRE program be accelerated. Does the 2005 budget allow you to accelerate 

the program? 

Answer. Yes, the Forest Service has the discretion to direct funding within budget 

line items as priorities dictate, consequently the FY 2005 budget allows us to accelerate the development and implementation of LANDFIRE as needed. 

The LANDFIRE team is providing input to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council 

(WFLC) on the merits of accelerating the LANDFIRE program. The proposed accelerated schedule ($39.9 million) would deliver most products 12 15 months faster 

than originally planned, at an increased cost of 8 percent, $3 million, over the life 

of the project. In FY 2005 the cost would increase about $3.2 million for the Forest 

Service, and $3 million for the Department of the Interior. The most significant 

issue being explored is the cost of acceleration with respect to product quality, and 

subsequent user confidence in the data resulting from LANDFIRE. These application costs must be fully evaluated before the final decision is made on whether or 

not to accelerate LANDFIRE development.

Æ