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

86–299 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–7

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET

REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION’S

PROPOSED FOREST SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(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

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Chief Counsel

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 2

Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, USDA Forest Service, accompanied by Hank

Kashdan, Director of Program and Budget Analysis ........................................ 11

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 1

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .......................................... 4

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the Environment, Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 5

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 19

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 3

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 20

APPENDIX

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 39

(1)

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET

REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in room

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

chairman, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. Well, we are almost on

time, Senator Bingaman. That is pretty good for these days.

Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey and the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale

Bosworth, to appear before the committee in general to discuss the

2004 budget request for the Forest Service.

We have had a chance to look at it, most staff have and most

Senators, but obviously it is difficult for us to answer our own

questions as we read it. We are going to have to ask some questions about why you did certain things. We hope you will be as

frank as you can.

I can tell you at the outset I am totally aware of what went on

in putting a budget together. These are difficult times. You were

charged with tradeoffs and certainly in that process I do not challenge your exercise of discretion in terms of the exercise of

prioritization, but I do believe that the budget before us raises

some very difficult questions for us because it is pretty obvious that

some of the areas that are not adequately funded are going to require funding before the year is out. We are sort of growing weary

of not funding these very much needed areas, either expecting to

fund them later or to get the money by trading off during the year

with other accounts being used.

I myself would like very much this year, Senator Bingaman, to

have this committee inform the Budget Committee what it is we

think is inadequate and why, and I would like to present the case

to them in the Budget Committee that if they want to be confronted with emergencies where we have to break their budget,

then leave it as is. If they want to be realistic, they ought to add

some things that are going to be needed that we are probably going

to agree on here in the committee on a bipartisan basis.

First of all, I understand that the $604 million that you propose

for fire suppression is equal to the 10-year average. I am now

2

speaking of the 10-year average as adjusted for inflation in the

area that you have provided the $604 million that I am referring

to. I am troubled by the proposal because to zero out funding in

the rehabilitation and restoration line item, while I understand

that these programs have always been job one and will be handled

out of other line items, I worry about the consequences of other

programs if we suffer a serious, bad fire season again this year. I

am sure that we will get a number of questions on this issue. As

soon as Senator Bingaman has made his opening remarks, I would

hope that you would address that serious problem that we already

see, and it is kind of a glaring problem.

I note also that there are a number of proposed reductions that

I think are probably the result of what I just explained, tight budgets. But I know that you will help us understand how you made

the choices. While some of us like to see important private land acquired and placed into Federal management, I think it is pretty obvious that when budgets are this tight, it comes to many of us how

are we going to manage more land when we cannot manage what

we have now got. I am not suggesting something as dramatic as

getting rid of land, but it does seem to me that we do have a situation that cries out for some kind of solution other than business as

usual on the acquisition side with little or no significant increases

available to maintain what we have got.

The deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements account. Let us talk about it. I note that we have this maintenance

backlog, and that is a clear symptom of the need to focus on managing our current Federal estate.

And finally I note that you recommend funds for economic action

programs and Pacific Northwest assistance programs. I hope you

will describe what other Department of Agriculture programs can

back-fill for these needs. Obviously, being from New Mexico, a little-known fact is it is a region that actually saw a more precipitous

drop in timber sales in the mid-1990’s than Oregon and Washington did. I often wondered just how long these programs could be

continued.

I will first turn to our ranking member, Senator Bingaman, and

indicate that it has been a pleasure working with you so far. I hope

that continues throughout the year.

Senator Bingaman.

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

FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you for having

the hearing.

Let me just mention a couple of items that are of concern. As a

general matter, I understand the budget that we are being presented with is essentially a flat budget. That is probably about

what one would expect given the fiscal situation that we are in. At

the same time, the need, particularly related to the wildfire problem that we have in the West, calls for something other than that

in my view. That concerns me. As I understand what is being proposed, there is about $416 million proposed for activities to help reduce hazardous fuels in anticipation of fires. This is just a very slight increase over what was apVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:41 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\86-299 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
3

propriated in 2002. If we do have another bad fire season—all indications are that we are going to have another bad fire season—I

do not think that maintaining level funding for wildfire management is going to be adequate.

This past year there was over $1 billion that had to be transferred from other accounts in order to help cover fire fighting costs.

I think the omnibus appropriation bill we are going to be considering today and tomorrow contains money to try to reimburse those

accounts. I do not know that they are totally reimbursed. In fact,

I believe they will remain at least a couple of hundred million dollars short of the amounts that were originally appropriated for

them.

The chairman mentioned the proposal to zero out funding for rehabilitation and restoration of burned areas. That concerns me as

well, and I would be anxious to know the position of the Forest

Service on that.

It appears that we are also moving away from giving priority to

wildland-urban interface areas in the allocation of the funds. At

least that is the impression I get. I would like to hear further about

how the agency sets its priorities at this point. The Forest Service

is proposing to treat about 170,000 fewer acres in this wildlandurban interface than is currently targeted, as I understand it.

I do think it is unfortunate that we have seen such a proposed

cut in Federal land acquisition, about a 70 percent cut from what

was appropriated last year. That particularly affects landowners

who are, in many cases, surrounded by national forests and have

been waiting a long time in an effort to sell their lands.

I do want to also ask a question, after we hear testimony regarding the concern that some have expressed about a shift toward favoring more commercial timber harvesting and see if that is something that is an explicit policy or if that is not in fact what is happening. I would like to know what the Forest Service position is on

that.

I very much appreciate your scheduling the hearing, and I look

forward to the testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I was going to proceed right to the witnesses, but since there are

only two Senators, it would not take too much time if you would

like to make a few comments.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be pleased to yield to you and then, Senator Johnson, we will give you an equal amount of time.

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

FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. I appreciate it and I will be brief.

Welcome, gentlemen. Delighted to have you here.

I just wanted to comment on some general areas, and perhaps

as you go through your specifics, you might see how some of those

dollars relate to some of the issues. Fire suppression, obviously, is

one of the ones that is most important to us.

I think for those of us particularly who live where we have 50

percent Federal lands in our State, access to these lands is imporVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:41 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\86-299 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
4

tant to us, whether it be roadless, whether it be wilderness. Wilderness studies seem to go on perpetually on some of those things.

Of course, management overall, but management plans, some of

which go on for years beyond the 10 years that is supposed to be

the case I understand.

Local cooperation and jointly working with local people and local

governments. I am going to put in a bill that has to do with the

cooperating agency and see if we cannot make that work a little

bit better than we have in the past.

At some point we are going to be talking about fee demonstration

projects in parks, and whether or not that is useful or works in the

forests is interesting to me as well.

So those are the main things, and then management of course,

regional level and so on is very important. So these are just things

that, as I look at the budget, I will be looking to see what we can

do hopefully to strengthen those.

Thank you. I look forward to your comments.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Johnson, do you have a few observations?

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Just very briefly. I will submit a full opening

statement.

Just let me, first, welcome Under Secretary Rey and Forest Service Chief Bosworth to the committee and express my appreciation

for the personal attention that you gave to our circumstances in the

Black Hills National Forest since last summer while we had two

particularly large fires underway in that very unique forest with

the huge amount of human interface that we have in the national

forest there in South Dakota.

I appreciate what you are attempting to do. I have some differences of opinion about the budgetary aspects of what you are

being asked to work with and I appreciate that those are not numbers that you chose necessarily. They were numbers that you were

being asked to work with.

But government is a matter of setting priorities. That is what we

do, and this is a rich country. We can do a lot of things. We cannot

do everything, but we can do a lot of things. But I simply have to

express some concern as we embark on the 2004 budget process

here. The budget resolution—hopefully we will have one this year

and more timely appropriations than we had in 2003.

But I have to share some concern about recommendations that

we can apparently afford over $100 million in tax cuts this year,

but we are being told that we should have a flat line budget in

funding hazardous fuel reduction and zero out funding for rehabilitation of burned lands and require our Forest Service to continue

to borrow from accounts falling behind, I am afraid, with the costs

of the fire rehabilitation. And this worries me a great deal. We

have, I am told, a 2003 shortfall of nearly $600 million from last

year’s fire season, and this is going to continue to cause us, I think,

some serious problems.

I look forward to some questions specifically on the Black Hills

Forest at the appropriate time, but welcome to this committee.

5

[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Thank you, Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, for scheduling

this important hearing to receive testimony and review the Administration’s Fiscal

Year 2004 Forest Service budget. I appreciate Under-Secretary Mark Rey and Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth setting aside time in their schedules to appear before this committee, and I look forward to probing the details and policy implications of the budget blueprint.

The funding priorities in the Administration’s budget raise three key questions toward protecting and enhancing America’s National Forest and Grassland system.

Through a series of administrative actions, the Forest Service and other federal

land agencies have sought to expedite fuel reduction projects, hasten the administrative appeals process, and propose new rules for land resource management plans.

Additional legislative proposals seek statutory changes that limit the public involvement in the management of public lands. Understanding how these interconnected

policies improve and enhance our forests and rangelands, while protecting our communities is a key challenge for our witnesses.

The 2002 fire season burned millions of acres resulting in fire suppression costs

in excess of $1.4 billion. The devastating 2002 fire season spurred action for the current basket of proposed land management policies. However, the President’s budget

blueprint holds the line on funding crucial hazardous fuel reduction projects and zeroed-out funding for the rehabilitation and restoration of burned lands. I am concerned that the proposed budget fails to provide adequate resources for the types

of on-the-ground activities these new rules and procedures require.

Finally, to some members on the committee, the Forest Service always appears

to be playing catch-up, borrowing from non-wildland fire accounts to cover the recurring, yet somehow unanticipated costs of fire. These interagency transfers result in

delaying important capital improvements and disrupting the daily functions of the

National Forest System. With a Fiscal Year 2003 shortfall of $600 million from last

year’s fire season, I am deeply concerned how this shortfall will be absorbed within

the Forest Service budget.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing

from the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Let us proceed. We will make your entire statement part of the

record now as to both of you. Would you proceed to summarize

them so that we will have some time left over. Thank you very

much to both of you. Please proceed.

Secretary Rey, you go first.

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

members of the committee. I am pleased to join you today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget for the Forest Service,

along with Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service.

In my testimony, specifically I want to discuss the Healthy Forests Initiative and the President’s Management Agenda. I will summarize and submit my entire statement for the record.

However, before starting on those two subjects, I would like to

first congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming the leadership

of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I look forward to

working with you and have appreciated your support for Forest

Service programs and those of Senator Bingaman over the last several years.

In fiscal year 2000, in particular, we were very appreciative of

both of your advocacy for what was, at the time, referred to as the

6

‘‘happy forest’’ initiative, through which you proposed significant

funding increases for Hazardous Fuel Reduction. It was out of that

emphasis on Congress’ part, with your leadership, that the National Fire Plan emerged. As the Departments of Agriculture and

the Interior developed plans to restore the health of the Nation’s

forests and rangelands, the Forest Service’s Cohesive Strategy was

developed. These efforts, in turn, later evolved into what is now referred to as the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan that was developed along with the Western Governors

and other State and local cooperators.

In the late 1990’s, in response to the concern over the risk of catastrophic fire, the Forest Service developed the first fire risk maps

depicting condition classes of forests based upon fuel loads. What

you will see on the map to your left there is the fire risk map depicting the different condition classes. Condition class 2 is in yellow. Condition class 3, which is the stands with the heaviest fuel

loads, the most susceptible to catastrophic fire, are in red.

The catastrophic fire seasons of fiscal year 2000 and 2002, the

serious forest health problems highlighted in these risk maps, and

the initiatives to address forest health represent a cornerstone in

what is now known as the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative.

And I want to thank you for your role in supporting key elements

of the President’s emphasis, and perhaps during the discussion

later today we will be able to discuss the elements of the Healthy

Forests Initiative in more detail.

To give you a perspective on what we see coming in this current

year and in this coming fire year, the map on your right shows

those areas where we predict above-normal or below-normal risk of

wildfire based on long-term weather and climate predictions, as

well as current readings of fuel moisture. The area in red is where

we predict a higher-than-average risk of wildfire during the coming

season.

There is some good news and some bad news on that map. The

good news is that the Southwest—since as I am talking to two Senators from New Mexico—is predicted to be little wetter this year

than it has been in years past. What that suggests is that there

is a chance that the fire season will get a later start and that we

will not be as involved as we were last year in the April and May

fires in Arizona and New Mexico. The bad news, of course, is that

there is still an extended area in the northern Rockies and in the

northern plains where we anticipate a higher-than-average fire risk

for the coming year.

In addition to the emphasis on healthy forests, the fiscal year

2004 program for the Forest Service provides a strong emphasis on

healthy government through the President’s Management Agenda.

We will be working closely with the administration and the Congress to assure that the President’s objectives of efficiency, performance, and accountability are reflected in Forest Service operations.

I would like to congratulate the Forest Service for its significant

accomplishment in obtaining for the first time this year an unqualified audit opinion on the fiscal year 2002 financial statements.

This clean opinion for the Forest Service and for the entire Department of Agriculture is important, although I must note that this

7

clean opinion is the minimum America’s taxpayers should expect in

the management of Federal funds. The Forest Service is committed

to working hard to maintain this clean financial status, and we

have an action plan for further improvements in accounting and

reconciliation functions, as well as significantly streamlining the

organization and improving the integration of budget and performance information.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would leave the entirety of my statement for the record and then just touch on some of the areas that

you raised with regard to suppression funding, fuels treatment, rehabilitation funding, and deferred maintenance.

Our suppression budget is funded, as it has been in past years,

based on an average figure for wildfire costs. Obviously, we have

exceeded that average in four of the last six fire seasons, and as

long as we remain in a prolonged drought situation, there is no

reason to believe we will not exceed it this coming year.

That brings us, I think, to an interest in working with you to see

if there is a better way, with this committee and the Budget Committee, to set up a system for funding fire fighting costs that does

not involve us in an annual exercise of borrowing from other accounts in order to pay for fire fighting efforts.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the dollar figure that represents that average? Excuse me. What is the dollar number?

Mr. REY. $604 million. That would be the 10-year average.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That is what you are asking for.

Mr. REY. Right. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Just to set a couple of years on record, what will

last year’s cost?

Mr. REY. $1.4 billion. Last year was the single most expensive

year on record in terms of dollars spent, the second most significant year in terms of acreage burned. 2000 was the record year in

terms of acres burned and the second most expensive fire season

to date.

The CHAIRMAN. So it does not do a lot of good for you to use

these percentages like we suppressed all but eight-tenths of a percent because it is the seven- or eight-tenths of a percent that has

cost you this $1.4 billion. Right?

Mr. REY. That is correct, and we, I think, have a graphic to show

you during the Chief’s testimony to that end.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you think we can get by with an average

when things seem no different than last year? Have there been any

big changes out there in the environment that might mitigate this?

Mr. REY. We are initiating a number of efforts for cost control,

particularly on large fires. But heretofore, what we have done historically is try to budget a prudent amount based upon average statistics and then use the borrowing authority to supplement that.

That is becoming increasingly problematic and perhaps that is a

good reason for the Congress and the administration to look at

some alternatives as we go forward.

With regard to fuels treatment, both of you correctly noted a

modest increase in fuels treatment. That increase will be supplemented with an additional $27 million of 2002 money that was borrowed for fire fighting that I think the conferees on the omnibus

bill voted to restore yesterday. So that $27 million will be added

8

on top for fuels treatment work during this year and into fiscal

year 2004.

Also, we believe that as we get some of the administrative reforms associated with the Healthy Forests Initiative on line, we

will be reducing significantly the unit cost for doing fuels treatment

work and fuels treatment dollars will be stretched further as a consequence.

You also noted that we have zeroed out the rehabilitation account and wondered how we would be funding rehabilitation work.

Typically, as the Chief will explain in his testimony, we draw from

a number of accounts to do rehabilitation work. In fact, the emergency rehabilitation work immediately following a fire has already

been done because we use suppression dollars or fire fighting dollars for that purpose. Additionally, we will have $24 million in

2002 money that will be restored to the rehabilitation account that

will augment further rehabilitation work in 2003 and 2004.

With regard to the deferred maintenance question in the capital

improvement account being zero, the budget this year includes a

legislative recommendation to provide us the authority to convey at

fair market value excess assets and facilities that are no longer of

use to the Forest Service and to use that money to put into a capital improvement account.

If I can digress for just a minute to show you pictorially what

we are talking about, I am going to ask the Forest Service to put

up a map and then some pictures.

In the Angeles National Forest, we are faced with a situation

where the communities have grown out into the forest and, as a

consequence, we have isolated tracts and facilities that are no

longer of any use to the Forest Service and no longer make sense

for the Forest Service to own. We will point to a couple of those

as we show you pictures of them. I think you have these pictures

before you.

The first picture is the Sierra Madre House owned by the Forest

Service in the middle of one of the Los Angeles suburbs. That came

into the Forest Service’s hands some number of years ago. It is still

part of the Government’s asset base but is in no real sense part of

the national forest nor of any particular use to the Forest Service.

We do rent it at probably something less than fair market value.

The second picture shows you the sort of neighborhood that that

house is in.

The third picture is what we call the Irwindale property, an isolated tract with no trees involved, also owned by the Forest Service

in the Los Angeles Basin. It is a 9-acre site with sand and gravel

quarry operations that we are currently holding for no particular

purpose.

The combined value of these tracts is about $5 million. That is

their current market value. With the kind of authority outlined in

our proposal, should you see fit to give us that authority, we would

attempt to convey these kinds of isolated and excess properties and

facilities at fair market value and then use that for capital improvements, in particular, the capital improvement for the picture

of the ranger district office that you are looking at which is a collection of mobile homes grafted together. So that is one way we

think that, without an increase in our budget authority, we can

9

deal with our deferred maintenance problem. Hence, the proposal

before you.

With that, I would be happy to respond to any of your questions

and turn the microphone over to Chief Bosworth.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

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

ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2004 Budget for the Forest

Service. I am pleased to join Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, at this

hearing today.

OVERVIEW

In my testimony, I want to discuss the President’s plans for the Forest Service

with particular attention to the Healthy Forests Initiative and the President’s Management Agenda. However, before addressing these two subjects, I would first like

to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming leadership of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I look forward to working with you and have very much

appreciated the support you have given to important natural resource management

issues faced by the Forest Service and bureaus of the Department of the Interior.

A brief look back over the last several years clearly shows how your personal involvement and that of Senator Bingaman has provided a focus on managing natural

resources today. This is especially true in the area of protecting the nation’s communities and natural resources from the threat of catastrophic wildfire, a key focus of

the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative.

In fiscal year 2000, the nation was ‘‘awakened’’ by the catastrophic fire that

struck the Cerro Grande area of New Mexico. I use the term ‘‘awakened,’’ because

factors that made this fire so serious had been the subject of expert prognostications

for several years. As the serious wildfires continued into Montana and Idaho later

in the 2000 fire season, we were very appreciative of your advocacy for what was,

at the time, referred to as the ‘‘happy forest’’ initiative, through which you proposed

significant funding increases for hazardous fuels reduction. It was out of this emphasis that the National Fire Plan emerged. As the Departments of Agriculture and

the Interior developed plans to restore the health of the nation’s forests and rangelands, the Forest Service Cohesive Strategy was developed. These efforts later

evolved into what is now referred to as the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and

Implementation Plan where federal, state, and local partnerships form a foundation

that will lead to improved protection of natural resources and communities.

Prior to fiscal year 2000, attention was beginning to focus on the vulnerability

natural resources faced from catastrophic wildfire due to the buildup of hazardous

fuels. In the late 1990’s the Forest Service produced risk maps that highlighted

what Senator Craig referred to as a big ‘‘red blob’’ in Northern Idaho that represented such a fuels buildup and serious threat to forest health. Congress responded by authorizing some focused experiments to restore the health and productivity of our forests and rangelands by authorizing the Quincy Library Group activities in northern California and stewardship end results contracting demonstration

authority.

The catastrophic fire seasons of fiscal years 2000 and 2002, the serious forest

health problems highlighted by the risk maps, and the initiatives to address forest

health, represent a cornerstone of what is now the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative. I again want to thank you for your role in supporting and developing key

aspects of the President’s emphasis.

HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests Initiative in order

to reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires to communities and the environment.

With the release of the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal, a combination

of administrative, legislative, and funding emphases is proposed to address this

need. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds on the fundamentals of multiple use

management principles that have guided the Forest Service since its formation.

These principles embody a balance of conservation and wise stewardship of natural

resources that are valid today in accomplishing the objectives of the Healthy Forests

Initiative.

10

In the near future, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will re-propose

legislation that supports the Healthy Forests Initiative. These legislative proposals

and detailed attention to reducing the burden of unnecessary regulatory and administrative processes that affect management natural resource management, will over

time, lead to federal, state and local forests and rangelands that are healthy and

productive for the nation.

The Healthy Forests Initiative will implement core components of the National

Fire Plan’s 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Fundamental to this effort is the outstanding cooperation that exists between the Forest Service, Department of the Interior, state governments, counties, and communities in the collaborative targeting

of hazardous fuels projects to assure the highest priority areas with the greatest

concentration of fuels are treated. This cooperative effort will not only help protect

communities, it can also serve as a model for reducing the morass of appeals and

litigation that too often has prevented the efficient and cost-effective execution of

projects on-the-ground. As will be discussed in detail by Chief Bosworth, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget supports the Healthy Forests Initiative.

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

In addition to emphasis on healthy forests, the fiscal year 2004 program for the

Forest Service provides strong emphasis on healthy government through the President’s Management Agenda. I will work closely with the Administration and Congress to assure that the President’s objectives of efficiency, performance, and accountability are reflected in Forest Service operations.

I would like to congratulate the Forest Service for its significant accomplishment

in obtaining, for the first time, an unqualified audit opinion on the fiscal year 2002

financial statements. This ‘‘clean’’ opinion for the Forest Service and the entire Department of Agriculture is important, although I must also note that this clean opinion is the minimum America’s taxpayers should expect in the management of federal funds. The Forest Service will have to work hard to maintain this clean financial status. It will have to further improve its accounting and reconciliation functions, as well as significantly streamline its organization, improve its integration of

budget and performance, and improve the public’s access to information through improved technology. These needs directly respond to the President’s Management

Agenda.

The Forest Service is making important progress in this area. As discussed in the

Agency’s Budget, it is improving its management of human resources by moving forward on competitive sourcing initiatives, realigning functions of the headquarters office, and consolidating financial management operations. The agency is implementing important e-government reforms, including the new National Fire Plan data

base in cooperation with the Department of the Interior. A new work planning process that will tie to budget formulation and agency accounting systems will be operational in fiscal year 2004. A process for performance monitoring, reporting, and integration with financial information, called the Performance Accountability System

will be implemented in 2004. Additionally, improved integration that will tie budget

and performance outputs to the goals of the Forest Service Strategic Plan will be

readily displayed in the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget, which is now being developed at the field level.

In addition to the broad goals of the President’s Management Agenda, the agency

will improve its accountability in Wildland Fire Management. The Forest Service

along with the Department of the Interior is the most skilled wildland firefighting

organization in the world. However, recent criticism of how the agencies spend

funds to suppress wildfire is of great concern to Chief Bosworth and me. In response

to criticisms that occurred during this past fire season, Chief Bosworth promptly

dispatched an accountability team to review specific expenses and policies that may

have contributed to unnecessary expenditures. As a result of this and other efforts,

new procedures have been established that will focus on ‘‘least cost suppression’’ alternatives in suppressing wildfire and eliminating unnecessary expenses; establish

clearer financial management accountability of incident commanders and line officers; and provide for improved internal and external controls and incentives.

Additionally, the Forest Service will fully implement performance measures in cooperation with the Department of the Interior that reflect the level of risk reduced

by treatments as part of the interagency effort to increase accountability of Federal

wildand fire management efforts.

In implementing these efficiency measures, it is important to emphasize that firefighter safety and the protection of communities will not be compromised. As we

focus on an efficient wildland firefighting organization, we must not lose sight of the

fact that fire suppression often is an expensive operation where major costs will be

11

most substantially reduced by accomplishing the goals of the President’s Healthy

Forests Initiative.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in closing let me emphasize how important the President’s Budget

and legislative agenda for the Forest Service is. The management of America’s natural resources on federal, state, and local lands has been adversely affected by polarized views on either the use or conservation of natural resources. For many years

we have been able to find only very limited middle ground. Rural economies have

been adversely affected by the significant reduction in the production of products

and services from these lands. Communities have been damaged and many more are

threatened by the prospect of catastrophic wildfire. The President’s Healthy Forests

Initiative, the National Fire Plan, and legislative initiatives to improve the ability

to cooperate with communities, reduce or eliminate unnecessary procedural process,

and expand contracting authority are important areas of focus for the Forest Service. With your help the Forest Service can accomplish a robust performance-based

program for the nation’s forests and rangelands, and do so in full collaboration with

state governments, communities and Congress.

I look forward to working with you in implementing the agency’s fiscal year 2004

program and would be happy to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you proceed, let me just ask, Secretary

Rey, on that last issue, can you tell me what your current estimate

of that kind of property that you just described as being your recommendation? What is the estimate of how much of that there is

in dollars? How many dollars’ worth of property is that?

Mr. REY. I will get you a complete list. It is broken down forest

by forest, but I think we are talking somewhere in the nature of

$80 million to $100 million worth of excess facilities and assets.

Obviously, where we have national forests that are in rapid growth

areas like the L.A. Basin, but the Phoenix Basin as well, there are

going to be a lot of those sorts of facilities. They will be the most

valuable as well, most likely, because of real estate value in the

area.

But I want to emphasize we are not talking about parcels of the

national forests. We are talking about isolated tracts which have

little or no value that over the years came into the Forest Service’s

ownership. In many cases they are facilities rather than parcels of

land that we are no longer using.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Go ahead, Senator.

Senator THOMAS. Just to clarify a little, you are not talking then

about 40 acres off in a forest somewhere that you might dispose of.

Mr. REY. No. These areas are all identified during the normal

forest planning process and are listed in each forest plan as assets

that are excess to the needs of the Forest Service and that do not

have any environmental sensitivities associated with them.

Senator THOMAS. You do, from time to time, trade isolated tracts,

I suppose, to make property more put together.

Mr. REY. We do have authority to do that, yes.

The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Bosworth.

STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF, USDA FOREST

SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR OF

PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman and

members of the committee, I do appreciate the chance to be here

12

and the opportunity to talk about the President’s budget for fiscal

year 2004 for the Forest Service.

I also would like to point out that I have Hank Kashdan here

with me. He is the Director of Program and Budget Analysis for

the Forest Service.

And I would like to also affirm what Under Secretary Rey said

about how much we appreciate the support that you and Senator

Bingaman have given us for the National Fire Plan and for the

health of the forests and the rangelands. It goes a long ways to

have that kind of assistance and understanding of the difficult

choices that we are making and problems we have to deal with. So

thanks again.

I want to talk about healthy forests and about the National Fire

Plan and our agency’s priorities. I will be fairly brief, but I want

to follow up a little bit on the financial management that Mark Rey

mentioned.

We have to be good stewards of the land, but we have also got

to be good stewards of taxpayers’ funds. And I am proud of the fact

that the Forest Service was able to achieve an unqualified audit

opinion for the first time in our agency’s history. And I would also

like to thank the tremendous amount of work the Forest Service

employees put forth in order for us to achieve that because we

went from a disclaimer to a clean opinion in 1 year, and that was

just unprecedented.

We are going to be looking at what kind of changes we need to

make so that we can sustain that unqualified audit opinion into the

future. It will require a number of changes because that is just our

first step. We have got a lot more work to do in order to be financially healthy.

A little bit of an overview of the 2004 President’s program: The

realities of a flat budget for us make us sort through an awful lot

of different choices. The end result, though, from my perspective,

is that some of the legislative and some of the regulatory initiatives

that we have have to help stretch these funds further. And that is

the important thing. If we are able to accomplish the goals of the

President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, if we are able to accomplish

some of the other objectives that we have, I do believe that we will

be able to take these scarce dollars and be able to get more work

done on the ground where it really makes a difference. Of course,

that is what we are all after.

These initiatives and these key funding emphases are directly

tied to the Healthy Forests Initiative. I have done a lot of traveling

in the 2 years that I have been in this job, and I have been to the

places like the Colorado front and I have been to New Mexico. I

have been to the Blue Mountains in Oregon. I have been to the

Black Hills. I have been to the Santa Fe area and northern Arizona. And I have seen some of the fires and I have also talked to

people that live near those areas. And I have also been to the

Green Knoll fire, I should say, in Wyoming. We have just got some

huge problems in these areas and it is not isolated to one or two

areas. It is across the board. And it is not just the West. We have

a lot of problems in the South and the East as well.

The underpinning of the Healthy Forests Initiative is to reduce

the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Hazardous fuels will be reduced

13

based upon our 10-year Comprehensive Strategy. We will be working collaboratively with communities based on criteria for project

selection that emphasize the highest priority areas for treatment.

The only way this will work is if we work together with the communities and with other landowners, other agencies. So the whole

purpose of both the Healthy Forests Initiative, as well as the Comprehensive Strategy, is a collaborative approach.

There are also some other areas in our budget. Forest Stewardship, for example, in the State and private forestry area: We are

proposing an increase there for a competitive cost-share grant process to support increased small-diameter utilization and fuels reduction on non-Federal lands so that we can work together between

Federal- and non-Federal landowners.

A significant increase in fire suppression that I hope will help

avoid the chaos of transfers of dollars and preserve hazardous fuel

funds.

There is an increase in research targeted at Sudden Oak Death

and other invasive species, and an additional increase for fire-related research.

There is an increase in range management that will help improve the health of our rangelands and help us get on top of our

objectives in having decisions made for allotment management

plans.

An increase for Forest Legacy to help enable the acquisition of

conservation easements of some of these important tracts.

And there is an array of legislative proposals that will: streamline the appeals process; provide permanent authority for stewardship; streamline the execution of highest priority hazardous fuels

reduction projects; expand partnership authorities; and make existing watershed enhancement authority, known as the Wyden

Amendment, permanent.

Also important is a proposal to make the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent. I believe that the large majority of

people around national forests support that program.

I would like to just explain a couple of things that came up in

your remarks. We have a chart that I would like to have put up

that displays the costs of wildfires. The chart is there.

The point here is: on the left it shows the total number of fires.

The blue is 98.2 percent of the fires. The area in pink, there, is

about 1.8 percent of the fires. Now, the point is that that 1.8 percent of the fires end up—if you go to the right there—in terms of

suppression costs, costing 86 percent of our suppression costs. That

is huge. So 1.8 percent of the fires cost 86 percent of the suppression costs and 95.2 percent of the acres burned.

Now, of course, if you could take that small pink slice and eliminate it, then you would eliminate a huge percentage. We will never

be able to eliminate that but our objective is to keep these fires

small.

I should add that the blue area is what we refer to as small fires

and that pink slice is what we refer to as large fires, fires that are

over 300 acres in size.

The other thing that I would also mention is it came up about

our rehabilitation and restoration dollars being zeroed out. I think

we proposed in the past about $3.6 million in rehabilitation and

14

restoration funding and we are proposing to zero that out. Frankly,

the reason for that is that we have huge costs. If you look at the

fires of 2000 and the fires of 2001 and the fires of 2002, from a restoration standpoint, it is a drop in the bucket. The $3.6 million is

really a drop in the bucket.

What we really need to do is look at other funds that we have

which fit very well into restoration and rehabilitation, reprioritize

those, and focus those dollars toward these areas that are burned.

We can use wildlife habitat dollars. There are soils dollars that we

have. There are lots of other kinds of restoration dollars that we

have in our budget every year, reforestation dollars and timber

stand improvement. Those dollars can be focused onto those areas

where we have the highest priority in terms of restoration in these

burned-over areas. That is what we are about in the Forest Service:

restoring, maintaining, and taking care of these lands.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you not do that?

Mr. BOSWORTH. That is what we will be doing. My expectation

is that the regional foresters will be taking those dollars and legitimately focusing those onto those areas where we have the needs,

particularly in those areas where we have had large fires.

So that is pretty much what I wanted to say in my opening remarks. I do believe it is an honor to be Chief of the Forest Service

during these exciting times. I thank you for your help in solving

some of these problems. I am looking forward to working with you

and sorting through this fiscal year 2004 program. So I would be

happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bosworth follows:]

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

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

the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2004 Budget for the Forest

Service. I am accompanied by Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Hank Kashdan, Director of Program and Budget Analysis for the Forest Service. It is a great privilege

to be here today. I want to affirm what Under Secretary Rey said about how much

we appreciate your support, and that of Senator Bingaman, for the National Fire

Plan and the health of our forests and rangelands.

OVERVIEW

Teddy Roosevelt’s rich legacy includes the Forest Service, and he once observed

that people should make few promises and then keep them. Our agency, which will

celebrate its 99th anniversary during the 2004 budget year, has made more than

a few promises. I am often asked about my vision for the Forest Service. The Forest

Service must be viewed as the world’s leader in natural resource management by

living up to commitments, efficiently using and accounting for the taxpayer funds

that are entrusted to us, and treating people with respect. My vision as we approach

the centennial is to heed TR’s advice. We are an agency that keeps its promises.

The fiscal year 2004 President’s budget request for the Forest Service is $4.8 billion, $121 million greater than the FY 2003 President’s Budget. The FY 2004 Budget provides funding to reduce the risk of wildland fire to communities and the environment by implementing the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative. In addition, it

provides funds to enhance the ability of the Forest Service to meet multiple demands. The major departure from fiscal year 2003 is an increase of $184 million

for wildland fire suppression and additional increases in funds for forest and rangeland research, forest stewardship, forest legacy, range management, and hazardous

fuels reduction.

This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests Initiative in order

to help reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires to communities and the environment. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposal contains a combination of legislative and

funding priorities the President feels are necessary to address this need, as signaled

15

in his State of the Union message. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds on the fundamentals of multiple use management principles that have guided the Forest Service since its formation. These principles embody a balance of conservation and balanced approach to the use of natural resources that are valid today in working with

local communities, States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.

ACCOUNTABILITY

In my testimony today, I want to discuss in detail how the President’s fiscal year

2004 budget and accompanying legislative initiatives will improve the health of our

forests and rangelands, but first let me focus on the agency’s effort to improve its

financial accountability.

When I began my career, the Forest Service was viewed as a model federal agency, accomplishing our mission for the American people. I am pleased to share with

you today a stride that takes us closer to the reputation of a generation ago.

Through the extraordinary efforts of our employees across the nation, we and our

USDA counterparts have achieved an unqualified audit opinion for 2002. This is an

important step in a continuing effort to fulfill promises previous Chiefs and I have

made to get the Forest Service financial house in order. To progress from no opinion

to a clean opinion in just one year is unprecedented. This unqualified audit opinion

sets the basis for our next steps, which include additional financial reforms to efficiently consolidate financial management personnel; improve the effectiveness of the

financial management system as part of the funds control and budget execution

process; and improve the quality of account reconciliation. It will take as much work

to keep that clean financial opinion as it did to earn it. But, this important accomplishment of a clean audit opinion demonstrates the progress we are making in

keeping our word.

PROCESS PREDICAMENT

When I met with you a year ago, gridlock and analysis paralysis directly affected

our ability to deliver on many promises: to protect communities from catastrophic

wildfire, to provide a sustainable flow of forest and grassland products, and to sustain the landscapes used and enjoyed by the American people. These problems still

exist, but the Forest Service has taken the initiative to deal with this process predicament within its authority by proposing regulations and policies. I believe we are

on the road to success. We proposed a revised planning rule to provide a more readily understood planning process—one that the agency can implement within anticipated budgets. We proposed new processes to simplify documentation under NEPA

for management activities that do not significantly affect the environment—small,

routine projects that are supported by local communities, such as salvaging dead

and dying trees or removing insect infested or diseased trees. We propose to work

with you and the American people to keep our promise that these measures are

about sustainable land stewardship.

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a comprehensive strategy

to achieve the objectives of the President’s Management Agenda. Today, I’ll highlight a few of the significant efforts we’re making to improve Forest Service management and performance. In the competitive sourcing arena, we will conduct public/

private competitions during fiscal year 2004, identifying the most efficient, effective

way to accomplish work for the American people, as identified in the Agency’s Efficiency Plan which has been submitted to the Administration. Our e-government energies will move beyond web information delivery into four important areas: incident

planning and management, recreation services and information, electronic planning

record, and the federal and non-federal assistance process. We are instituting critical oversight controls to keep wildfire suppression costs as low as possible while protecting communities and resources and improve our methods of reporting wildland

fire suppression expenses. Several streamlining efforts are underway to reduce indirect costs and better examine the role and structure of various Forest Service organizational levels.

An element of the President’s Management Agenda concerning budget and performance initiative, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis provides

a standardized set of performance management criteria that provides a consistent

evaluation process to identify areas of performance and budget integration they

should improve. In FY 2004, the Wildland Fire Management and Capital Improvement and Maintenance programs of the Forest Service were selected to participate

in the first round of assessments using the PART. The PART analyses for these programs indicated that funds need to be better targeted within the Wildland Fire

16

Management program while the annual performance measures of Capital Improvement and Maintenance program inadequately linked to ongoing management initiatives aimed at addressing the maintenance backlog.

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT

The President’s budget provides a $7.3 million increase that supports a significant

Forest Service promise—to make progress on completing environmental analysis on

national forest rangelands. This emphasis will provide for a 30 percent increase in

grazing allotments operating under completed environmental analysis. It will also

enhance our capability to manage livestock and support communities where rangelands are an integral part of the economy and way of life.

FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH

Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean water, wildlife

habitat, recreation, and many other values. Key to sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying integrated resource management systems based

on the best science available. A $9.4 million increase in forest and rangeland research is a valuable addition to our program. Some of the increase will support research and development tools essential to prevent, detect, control, and monitor

invasive species and restore impacted ecosystems. Other emphasis includes a pine

bark beetle program that looks at new management strategies, better utilization of

bark beetle trees, and developing additional treatment options for managers and

landowners. Programs to identify new biological control agents and treatment methodology and to develop integrated pest management technology for land managers

will also be accelerated. The President’s Budget recognizes the need for research to

support the full range of challenges faced by land and resource managers because

challenges don’t stop at National Forest System boundaries. Addressing the issues

associated with America’s forests and grasslands—including hazardous fuels, protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, invasive species, and pathogens—

doesn’t depend upon who owns the ground. Keeping this promise goes beyond the

basic and applied science functions of research. We also need to bridge the gap between research findings and results on the ground. The request reflects the importance of technology transfer, internally in the Forest Service and externally through

our university and State and Private Forestry program partners.

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Through close cooperation with State Foresters and other partners, our State and

Private Forestry Program provides assistance to landowners and resource managers

to help sustain the Nation’s forests and protect communities and the environment

from wildland fire. The President’s budget contains an increase of over $38 million

for these programs. While most of the forest health management, cooperative fire

protection, and cooperative forestry programs continue at fiscal year 2003 levels, forest stewardship and the forest legacy program reflect an increase. A $16 million increase for forest stewardship supports the objectives of the National Fire Plan, the

Healthy Forest Initiative, and the Forestry Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. The increase

will strengthen our partnerships through a competitive cost-share program,

leveraging the effectiveness of federal funds to reduce hazardous fuels, improve

invasive species management, and enhance forest production from state and private

lands. This increase will support increased private landowners’ investment in the

management of small diameter and underutilized forest products. In the forest legacy program, the President’s budget proposes a $21 million increase to conserve environmentally important private forests through partnerships with States and willing landowners. The budget will support partnerships with up to ten additional

States that have not previously participated in the program. We expect total conservation of more than 200,000 acres, benefiting wildlife habitat, water quality, and

recreation.

THE NEXT 100 YEARS FOR AMERICA’S NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS

Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest levels represent the

greatest threat to the National Forests. However loudly voiced or strongly held

these views may be, they are not accurate for the reality of management of the National Forests in the next 100 years. This year’s budget request supports a program

to offer two billion board feet including salvage sales.

The request addresses two key long-term challenges to America’s National Forests

and Grasslands: the build up of hazardous fuels and the spread of invasive species

that seriously impair ecosystems. In August of last year, the President announced

17

the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI). Its objectives include streamlining the decision-making process and continuing our long-term commitment of working with

communities to achieve a meaningful level of public involvement.

We are committed to our continued partnership with those that use and enjoy

America’s National Forests as well as those that value them as part of our nation,

no matter where they live. Although we have made progress, we must do more. Last

year, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed new legislation to authorize permanent stewardship contracting authority, expedited review, hazardous

fuels reduction projects, and address a burdensome administrative appeal process.

President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Healthy Forests during the State of

the Union Address. We are committed to working with you as you consider the proposals of the Secretaries.

Hazardous Fuels

The presence of large amounts of hazardous fuels poses a tremendous threat to

people and to public and private natural resources. The Budget increases emphasis

on protecting communities and property from the effects of these combustible fuels—

catastrophic wildfire. The budget supports the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and

Implementation Plan, developed in close collaboration with governors, communities,

and the Department of the Interior. Through performance goals contained in the implementation plan, we will implement hazardous fuels reduction projects, improve

fire suppression planning, expand forest product utilization, protect lands from fire

related spreads of invasive species, and undertake key fire research. The budget contains an increase of nearly $184 million for fire suppression.

Wildland fire suppression costs are increasing and are having significant impact

upon a wide number of Forest Service programs. The cost increases are due a number of reasons, including costs associated with national mobilization, wildland fire

suppression in areas of high hazardous fuel loads, large aircraft and helicopter operations, and the increasing complexity of suppression in the wildland-urban interface.

To address these increasing costs, the Budget proposes that the Forest Service and

the Department of Interior (DOI): review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation

resources; establish a review team to evaluate and develop cost containment strategies; and revise procedures to improve reporting of fire suppression spending. Together with other actions, this should enable the Forest Service to significantly improve our ability to fight wildfires without the major impacts to other programs we

experienced during last year’s fire fund transfers. Last year we kept our promise

by aggressively fighting wildfire—long after funds appropriated specifically for fire

suppression were gone and catching more than 99 percent of fires the way they all

start, small. The request includes a renewed emphasis on up-to-date fire management plans and wildland fire use fires.

Accomplishing performance objectives under the National Fire Plan is also consistent with the President’s Management Agenda. Reducing hazardous fuels, protecting against fire-related invasive species, and targeting adequate resources to

suppress wildfire promotes improved health of Federal, State, Tribal, and local

lands as well as enhancing the economies of natural resource based communities.

I again urge all of us—cooperators and skeptics—to keep a focus on what we leave

on the land, not what we take from it. Effective, integrated hazardous fuels reduction can leave us with clean, healthy water, improved wildlife habitat, and more satisfying recreation experiences.

Invasives

Invasive species, especially weeds, pose a tremendous threat to forests and grasslands. Whether kudzu or leafy spurge or knapweed or oriental bittersweet vine,

these unwanted invasives take hold and out-compete native species, changing the

look and structure of entire ecosystems. Our response to these threats needs to embrace an integrated approach. In the coming year we will improve integration of efforts among the National Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry,

and other USDA agencies.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The FY 2004 Budget contains several legislative proposals that significantly advance common sense forest health efforts that prevent the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires and move past ‘‘process gridlock’’ to improve agency land management efficiency. Four proposals, in particular, promote the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative by reducing hazardous fuels; permanently authorizing stewardship

end results contracting; repealing the Appeals Reform Act; and revising standards

of judicial review in decisions that relate to activities necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems.

18

Hazardous Fuels

As mentioned earlier, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed legislation that authorizes emergency fuels reduction projects in priority areas of federal forests outside wilderness areas. This will allow timely treatment of forests at

risk of catastrophic fire and those that pose the greatest risk to people, communities, and the environment. Our top priorities will include the wildland-urban

interface, municipal watersheds, areas affected by disease, insect activity,

windthrow, and areas subject to catastrophic reburn. We would select projects

through collaborative processes, consistent with the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy

and Implementation Plan.

Fundamental to better implementation of core components of the National Fire

Plan’s 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy is the outstanding cooperation that exists

between the Forest Service, Department of the Interior, State governments, counties, and communities in the collaborative targeting of hazardous fuels projects to

assure the highest priority areas with the greatest concentration of fuels are treated.

Stewardship End Results Contracting

The complex patchwork of authorities and agreements associated with national

forest management often has provided significant disincentives for private entities

to engage in forest health restoration work. The fiscal year 1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as amended, authorizes the Forest Service to enter

into 84 stewardship end result pilot projects. The stewardship contracting authority

allows the Forest Service to offset the cost of forest health work performed by the

private contractor against the value of the forest products removed by the contractor. This goods-for-services approach to management has worked effectively in pilot

projects. The concept embodies a promising tool to accomplish management goals

without expanding current appropriations. Current authority will expire on September 30, 2004. I hope Congress will expand and make permanent this tool as proposed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior.

Repeal the Appeals Reform Act

The Forest Service is subject to procedural requirements that are not required of

any other Federal agency. To address this issue, the Secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior will propose legislation to repeal Section 322 of the Department of the

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (commonly known as the

‘‘Appeals Reform Act,’’) that imposed these requirements that I believe limit our

ability to work collaboratively with the public.

Standards of Judicial Review

To ensure that courts consider the public interest in avoiding irreparable harm

to ecosystems and that the public interest in avoiding the short-term effects of such

action is outweighed by the public interest in avoiding long-term harm to such ecosystems, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to

establish revised rules for courts in decisions that relate to activities necessary to

restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems.

The President’s Budget also includes legislative proposals to:

• Expand or clarify existing partnership authorities;

• Permanently authorize the Recreation Fee Demonstration program;

• Allow for the transfer of Forest Legacy titles to willing State governments;

• Promote watershed restoration and enhancement agreements;

• Authorize a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund;

• Restore eligibility for State and Private Forestry Programs of the three Pacific

island entities in ‘‘Compacts of Free Association′′; and

• Eliminate requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 that duplicate the Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993.

CONCLUSION

We are fulfilling key promises in re-establishing sound management throughout

the Forest Service. I want the Forest Service to be an organization people trust and

once again point to as an example of good government. Earning this trust means

becoming good stewards of not only public land and natural resources, but of public

dollars, of public trust. We know the work is not complete—there are still many opportunities like large fire cost management, integrating information systems, and

making organizational changes in administrative support operations-but we’re making good progress.

19

Traditional functional and program boundaries do not serve us well—they get in

the way of our ability to keep our word. I am committed to putting more effort into

integrating our programs and becoming better partners with people interested in

leveraging our work. The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative exemplifies an integrated approach to problems that affect not just national forests or national grasslands, but America’s forests and America’s rangelands. It is an opportunity for our

private land neighbors, for research, for partner agencies, for everyone concerned

about America’s forests and grasslands.

Let me reiterate the deep honor I feel in being Chief of the Forest Service in this

challenging time and the equally deep sense of obligation I feel to keep our promises

to the American people. I enlist your continued support and look forward to working

with you toward that end.

I will be happy to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Smith, would you like to make a few early observations?

The other Senators had a chance to do that, and then, Senator

Wyden, we will let you comment for a minute. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I had a longer statement. I will

include it in the record, if I may.

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership in convening this hearing to examine

the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Forest Service. I also

want to thank Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth for being here today, and

for their concerted effort to make forest management policy meet the immediate and

long-term needs of the land, the environment and our communities.

Let me begin by drawing your attention to the Rough and Ready mill in Cave

Junction, Oregon. This mill is one of the largest family-wage employers in the Illinois Valley, an area which was on the verge of evacuation during the Biscuit Fire

last summer. It is also the last mill in Josephine County. In December, the owners

of Rough and Ready announced that because of a shortage of logs, they would be

closing their doors and laying off their employees. In less than a month their doors

will close, and with a bitter taste of irony. Three miles from the Rough and Ready

mill, lies the site of the Biscuit Fire, where over 1 billion board feet of salvageable

timber lies outside of wilderness areas and other set-asides. The Forest Service tells

us that the environmental impact statements for rehabilitation and salvage of the

Biscuit Fire will not be prepared until later this year, and appeals and litigation

will likely push projects into 2004. This is totally unacceptable.

Over the past decade, over one hundred and sixty mills have been closed in Oregon and over 30,000 jobs were lost. Let me tell you now that I cannot allow this

mill and its workers to be drawn into that statistic, and into the failed forest policies that this Administration has vowed to correct.

Tomorrow, mill workers and community members are going to be holding a protest in front of the Forest Service office in Cave Junction. They will be calling on

all of us, executive and legislative branches, to act.

I believe that the Forest Service is doing all that it can, within existing law and

statute, to rehabilitate the Biscuit Fire and deliver volume wherever possible and

appropriate. The Administration’s legislative proposals and administrative actions

reflect this at the national level, and I thank you for your hard work. I would, however, ask that you clarify how your funding priorities are consistent with your stated management priorities in the Pacific Northwest. Last year, the Forest Service

proposed to reduce Region 6’s funding by 12%. In light of the catastrophic wildfires

Oregon experienced, and the Administration’s goal to fully implement the Northwest

Forest Plan, I trust that Region 6’s funding will be enhanced in Fiscal Year 2004,

not further reduced. I am also wary of your proposal to zero out the Pacific Northwest Assistance Program, which is designed to aid communities affected by reductions in harvest due to the economic impact of the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan.

While it may be appropriate to phase out this program once a sustainable and predictable level of volume is delivered under the Northwest Forest Plan, it is clearly

premature at this time.

On another note, let me mention that I strongly support the President’s Healthy

Forests Initiative and the proposals contained in the FY04 budget request. It is a

well-balanced approach and it deserves quick passage by this Congress before the

West is again enshrouded in smoke. But the Healthy Forests Initiative will neither

20

be constructive nor fiscally feasible if we continue losing the infrastructure needed

to process thinned and salvaged trees. This needs to be realized immediately and

I ask that you commit today to dedicating the needed resources to keep the folks

in Cave Junction employed in the short term so that they can contribute in the longterm to balanced forest management.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding today’s hearing and for your firm commitment to addressing forest health issues during the 108th Congress.

Senator SMITH. I have some questions as well if this is the appropriate time to ask them.

The CHAIRMAN. We will get to you on the questions.

Senator Wyden, did you have some opening remarks?

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

FROM OREGON

Senator WYDEN. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to say how much I appreciate your making this a

priority issue. As you know, each summer, the West faces the prospect of burning up, and we simply cannot afford to turn these rural

communities into sacrifice zones. There is a tremendous backlog of

work that needs to be done to promote forest health.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I thought we came very close last

session in terms of working out a bipartisan effort. Senator Smith

was involved, as were Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein. In

my view, Mark Rey was extremely cooperative in terms of working

with us, and we have to continue in this manner.

I would just make one substantive point and then wait for questions, Mr. Chairman. I think that what the Chief is talking about

in terms of an collaborative approach on hazardous fuels is very

important. But suffice it to say we are getting a lot of flack at home

that this is not being accompanied by sufficient environmental

standards. I think if we are going to find the common ground—and

we got very, very close last session in my view—we have to couple

that collaborative approach with some concrete environmental

standards. I will ask some questions about that later.

Mr. Chairman, again I thank you very much for making this a

priority. We have to get this done early in this session. This is simply a matter of life and death for westerners.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I want to just make this observation to

tell you the kind of problem I think we have as an authorizing committee. I was telling Senator Bingaman on the omnibus bill, I do

not think we know as of now the extent to which this committee’s

authorizing jurisdiction was infringed upon in an appropriation

bill. I do not use that word with any anger or recrimination, but

it does seem that we have to decide whether we are authorized

some of these controversial areas of not. If we are not and if we

cannot, then obviously somebody will do them for us.

On the other hand, everybody is so busy that if you talk about

a forest bill that would address these issues, the kind you are

speaking of, the kind that was addressed in the omnibus bill by

Senator Burns with reference to stewardship and partnerships,

when you talk about fitting them in an agenda up here, it becomes

almost imponderable how you are going to get it done.

But I told Senator Craig I would like very much to put together

a forest bill this year. Obviously, every time that is done, the issue

of logging, no logging, some logging comes up, and it is important

21

that that be looked at. But there are so many other issues where

we ought to be helping them do a better job. They have expressed

a couple of them here today.

We will start with money, seeing whether we can entice the

Budget Committee to give us more money for the kinds of things

they have been unable to fund. After that, I would hope that parallel to the energy bill, we could start putting together the fruits

of some hearings on the forest problems in the country. There are

a myriad of them without question.

I have maybe 10 or 15 that I am going to hold and submit at

the end, but I would like to open with just a discussion with you.

It seems to me the Secretary mentioned the activities that occurred on the floor. It was also in an appropriation bill, and a very

large bill was introduced—I was the prime sponsor of it—called

‘‘happy forests.’’ It was for an amendment. It was something like

$650 million or $700 million for taking care of our forests which

were then at the peak of fire destruction and all the other things.

We split that between Ag and Interior, and as I recall, we attached

some very important amendments to that. We had to work very

hard with the Clinton administration to get them in.

That bill, amendment, provided for an inventory by the Departments of the properties that were to be determined as dangerous

or perilous because they were close to the forests and could be part

of what you have alluded to today, the urban interface, which is

apt to bring very serious and costly fires. We had some problems

with that, but ultimately, it was agreed that that be done.

Is it fair to say that the areas have been identified that are

urban areas of danger because of their proximity? Has that been

done, Mr. Bosworth?

Mr. BOSWORTH. About last, maybe June or July, I believe, we

completed the first effort, working with the State foresters and others, to identify communities at risk. There are some problems with

the list. As you would expect, in some cases you can end up with

every community in some States being at risk, and then in other

States it is approached a little bit differently.

We have an agreement with the State foresters. The National Association of Counties, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service to work in a collaborative way now to establish criteria

for communities—and a little more structured criteria—that would

be applied State by State in an interagency way to identify where

the priorities would be for doing fuels treatment across the landscape around these communities. So it is a good landscape approach. It is collaborative and it has taken sort of the next step

from identifying these communities.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it would seem to me that either that is

meaningful or it is not. When you get these lists, it seems like it

naturally lends itself to some prioritization. There must be some

that are highly at risk, some that are not quite that much, but we

have to get on with solving some of them.

Mr. BOSWORTH. The way that this would work is that we would

identify those that are high, those that are moderate, and those

that are low so that we can have a better way of using these criteria, have a better way of being consistent across the country in

22

how we are applying this so that we can get our focus on those

highest priority, most important areas.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just want to ask about one and give you

an observation regarding what I think you could help us with.

Santa Fe is one, and obviously the watershed in Santa Fe must be

in a high-risk area because if that burns, the water supply for this

city goes. It is not a question of did I dream this up as something

we need. It is right there. They have a lake. The lake yields the

water supply, and the forest is right there. That has been a very

slow process of fixing that. I want to ask you where we are on that

and what is going to be done.

But in a general way, it would seem to me to be important to

us that you tell us for the record which of these risk areas that you

would like to rehabilitate have been delayed. If they have been delayed for undue lengths of time, I would like you to tell us which

ones are unduly delayed and why. If they are delayed because of

lawsuits, because of environmental contentions that the plans are

not right, just give us a number of them and the delays and tell

us why that is occurring. We continue to hear stories of why it is

delayed. I think it would be good to get an official list, if you could

do that, of those that have been delayed with your reasoning as to

why, lack of money, cannot get it done because of this, that, or the

other. Maybe roadless areas has been a problem in some. Whichever it is, would you tell us that at your leisure for the record?

Mr. BOSWORTH. First, I will respond to your question about the

Santa Fe watershed and then I will try to respond to those specific

areas.

We are working in the Santa Fe watershed now. We issued a

contract in September 2002 for $400,000 to treat about 700 more

acres. One of the difficulties in the Santa Fe watershed is that it

is so critical that we want to make sure that we do not get more

fuel down without treating it than what we can treat in 1 year. In

other words, as we are doing the mechanical thinning or the

thinning with chainsaws to get the small trees down, we need to

either burn those or move them out so that we do not have an overaccumulation which would increase the hazard rather than decrease it. So they are working at that at about a 700-acre-a-year

rate because they believe that that is about the amount that they

can be sure that they can clean up. We would like to be able to

move along at a faster rate, but it is pretty important to make sure

that they stay up with that.

It took a long time to work our way through negotiations to try

to avoid appeals and litigation. We, in the end, did not avoid the

appeals and we worked our way through that process.

Another problem with the Santa Fe watershed is that it is expen- sive. It is about $1,150 an acre. Our average for fuels treatment

nationwide is about $120 an acre. So you can see that it is about

10 times more. Now, it is in a wildland-urban interface, a municipal watershed which adds cost to it. It is very costly and there are

a lot of reasons for that. Part of it is the difficulty. Part of it is that

you negotiate away. If you negotiate enough, you add costs for mitigation to where it gets very expensive.

Now, regarding the areas around the country that we view as

high-priority areas, I cannot sit here at this moment and list those

23

out and say how they have been delayed, but we will pull together

some information and get it to you.

I can say that the purpose of the Healthy Forests Initiative—and

some of the things we have been doing administratively and

through regulatory proposals—is to try to help simplify those processes so we can shorten the period of time that it takes to make

a decision and get more of the dollars on the ground doing fuels

treatment work and do that in a collaborative way, work closely

with the communities up front and get the job done. We have to

be able to do it that way and we have to speed it up if we are going

to be able to make a difference.

Now, the fiscal year 2003 projects that we plan on doing will be

identified in May, and then we will also be very happy to share

that with the committee as well when we get those identified.

Mr. REY. We can also share sort of a running tally of how project

appeals and litigation is going during the course of a year. I think

it is fair to say that we are seeing some increases in appellate and

litigation activity as we are moving into areas that heretofore we

have not done treatments in. Whether they are in the wildlandurban interface or not does not seem to be a factor in whether we

are seeing appeals or lawsuits being filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bingaman.

Senator BINGAMAN. My impression is, at least in this last year,

that part of the delay that you experienced in getting this thinning

accomplished in some of these wildland-urban interfaces—in fact,

right in the Santa Fe watershed—some of that delay was because

of the need to borrow funds to do fire fighting. I remember, Chief

Bosworth, we spoke about this. You arranged to shift some funding

over so that the work could go forward and an effort could be made

there in Santa Fe. Shortly after that, my impression was that everything had to go on hold because the money then had to be shifted out of that account and used to fight fires. So it was all delayed.

I think they are supposed to get started tomorrow or something instead of last September.

Am I right that part of the problem is this constant need that

you have had each year to shift funds in and out of these accounts

to fight the fires?

Mr. BOSWORTH. It is correct that in fiscal year 2002, when we

had all those fires, we continually transferred dollars from other

accounts to fight fires. The way we prioritize it, one of the last

places we wanted to take dollars was from fuels treatment funds.

In the end, we transferred about $20 million out of fuels treatment

into fire suppression. So out of the total, that was not a huge

amount, but it did delay some projects that we would have gotten

going otherwise.

Senator BINGAMAN. I am not clear, and maybe you said this in

your discussion with Senator Domenici and I just did not understand it. What is your plan to fix this problem so that you do not

have this drill every year where you are taking money out of these

other accounts in order to fight fires? The budget proposal you have

given us now, if we enact it, ensures that you are going to have

to do that again.

Mr. REY. If we have a difficult fire year.

24

I think in last year’s budget proposal, we proposed a governmentwide emergency account for contingencies like this.

Senator BINGAMAN. Is that what you are suggesting to us now?

Are you suggesting anything to us?

Mr. REY. I think what we are suggesting now is we would like

to sit down with you all and with the Budget Committee to see if

something like that can work so that we do not have a continued

rotation of accounts.

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes, I think that would be a priority because

I think clearly it must be frustrating to you to have to interrupt

other activities that you believe are important like thinning activities in these wildland-urban interface areas because you have had

to take money to do something else which was not adequately funded.

Let me ask about the roadless rule. That has been upheld at the

appellate court level. Is the Forest Service proceeding to implement

that, or is there an effort underway to modify that? Or what is happening with the roadless rule?

Mr. REY. The roadless rule is still the subject of a considerable

amount of litigation in numerous judicial districts. We, in fact, earlier this week, argued a case in Wyoming where we can expect a

decision shortly.

In the Ninth Circuit, the rule was enjoined. Upon appeal to the

Ninth Circuit, the circuit court reversed the district court opinion.

The plaintiff in that case, which is the State of Idaho, has filed a

motion asking the Ninth Circuit for en banc review, which means

all the judges in the circuit review the three-judge panel’s decision.

I guess everyone is waiting to see whether that will be granted.

Senator BINGAMAN. What is the position that the administration

is taking in that litigation?

Mr. REY. In that litigation, we defended at the district court level

and did not participate at the circuit court level, in the interest of

moving on to develop a different roadless rule which we are still

working on and hope to propose within the next couple of months.

In the interim, we have refrained from entering roadless areas

except and unless an entry has been approved by the Chief, and

I do not believe you have approved any to date.

Senator BINGAMAN. So you anticipate in the next couple of

months we will get a proposal or there will be a new, modified

roadless rule that you will issue.

Mr. REY. That is what we are working on right now. I am guessing that the litigation will continue simultaneously with that.

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me ask about the stewardship contract?

I do not know if I am running over my time. I do not guess we are

using the timer today.

The CHAIRMAN. Just kind of guessing.

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay.

The CHAIRMAN. You are getting close.

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay, let me ask one more question. Then I

will desist.

On forest stewardship contracts, Senator Domenici referred to

the fact that there is substantial language in this latest appropriation package, which we are hopefully going to get to see before we

vote on it, that relates to stewardship contracting. My understandVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:41 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86-299 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
25

ing is that that was a demonstration program we put into place in

1998, and the idea was we would see how it worked.

Now the new language, as I am led to believe, makes it a 10-year

program and eliminates the emphasis which was previously there

on non-commercial contracting, non-commercial timber activity.

I would ask your advice to this committee on what should we be

doing now. It does not make a lot of sense to be continuing to kid

ourselves that we are having a demonstration program once we

have legislated that it is for 10 years. The administration supports

this presumably or it would not be in that bill.

Mr. REY. That is correct. The demonstration program has, in our

mind, served its purpose. There have been two reviews of the demonstration pilot projects to date: one, an internal review by the Forest Service, another by an outside party, the Pinchot Institute,

which is a not-for-profit environmental think tank. In both cases I

think what we found was that there is much to be gained by broadening the stewardship authority, making it a permanent authority,

and broadening it so that the Interior agencies have the same opportunity to use it as a management tool. That is why we recommended making the authority permanent, or at least longer

term, last fall when we sent up a legislative proposal as part of the

President’s Healthy Forests Initiative.

We still look at this primarily as a way of using new contract

tools to do work that would not be done on a commercial basis because most of the material that has to be thinned out of these forests is not of commercial value. So I do not see us changing the

emphasis from where it is now in the pilot projects.

I think that the challenge for us, should you all pass this legislation, is going to be to reach out and involve as many people as possible in moving this project forward from a pilot project to one that

we hope will allow us to do fuels treatments at a more landscape

level.

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Thomas, you are next.

Senator THOMAS. I know that situations are all different, but

sometimes it seems a little bit of a paradox to be talking about

thinning and fire suppression and at the same time reducing commercial reductions. How do you react to that?

Mr. REY. Well, I guess the distinction that I make is that the

purpose of the President’s initiative goes to the question of what

kind of forest we want to have, not what we take out of it. And

the kind of forest we want to have, by virtue of what we are trying

to accomplish under this initiative, is one that is fire resistant and

ecologically sustainable where we can restore fire to a natural role

in the ecosystem. If there is commercial material that is removed

from the forest, incidental to that purpose, then we ought to use

it, and I think we have been fairly forthright about saying that.

Separately, we also believe that there is a role at some level,

within proper environmental constraints, for the national forests to

contribute wood products to the Nation’s needs. Those two are not

always going to square up in the same place at the same time.

Senator THOMAS. No, I understand. But it does seem like in

many cases thinning of commercial-size timber is a movement toVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:41 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86-299 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
26

ward fire suppression and the more you can get that done, as an

income feature and being done in the private sector, it seems to me

that makes a lot of sense.

Mr. REY. We can reduce the cost to the taxpayer of doing the forest health work that needs to be done. But the primary objective

has to be——

Senator THOMAS. I understand what the objective is, but there

are several ways to get to an objective sometimes.

Mr. REY. Right, exactly.

Senator THOMAS. You indicate that you are going to make some

changes in the forest regulations which will shorten the process

and save $300 million. Generally, what are you seeking to do in

that planning process to make it more efficient?

Mr. REY. What we have proposed so far are some changes to the

way we comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and

the Endangered Species Act. With regard to the National Environmental Policy Act, we and the Department of the Interior are proposing two ‘‘categorical exclusions’’ to cover certain kinds of fuel

treatment and post-fire restoration work. Those were out for public

comment and review. The public comment period on those closed

at the end of January, January 31. And our cursory review of the

record so far showed substantial support for what we had in mind.

In addition to that change, we have undertaken 15 case studies

for environmental assessments to see if we can do environmental

assessments for those projects that require additional environmental analysis on a more timely basis.

The underlying philosophy here, if I can just digress for a

minute, is that under NEPA, you have three levels of environmental analysis. For routine projects that you do time and time

again—where you know what the environmental consequences

could be with general certainty—you can use a ‘‘categorical exclusion.’’ It is an instrument under NEPA that is allowed.

For projects that are a little more complicated, or that you are

uncertain as to the environmental consequences, you have to do

some additional analysis: an ‘‘environmental assessment.’’

An environmental assessment is supposed to be a relatively

straightforward and brief analysis that is supposed to lead to one

of two conclusions: Either A, that there is no significant environmental impact, in which case you move on and do the project; or

B, there is a question or there is potentially some significant environmental impact, in which case you do an ‘‘environmental impact

statement.’’

Our problem is that over time, over the 30 years we have been

working with NEPA, our environmental assessments have been

getting bigger and longer and more complex because, in part, some

of our people have been trying to do environmental assessments as

if they were environmental impact statements or, in some cases,

even to avoid environmental impact statements. And that is not

what you are supposed to do with an environmental assessment.

So the point of these 15 models, these case studies in the field,

is to see if we can get back to doing simple, straightforward, 20-

or 30-page environmental assessments instead of 200- and 300-

page environmental assessments. Hopefully, most of those will lead

to a finding of no significant environmental impact. For the ones

27

that do, then we will do an EIS, which is what the statute originally envisioned. But for the vast majority of cases, we should be

able to proceed with a project under a much simpler environmental

assessment. We think that can probably cut our analysis costs from

$100,000 a project to maybe closer to $20,000 or $25,000 a project.

So those are the NEPA changes.

We are also looking at some changes under the Endangered Species Act as well.

Senator THOMAS. That is great. All of us, of course, want to make

sure that the environment is protected. I remember when Chief

Thomas was here when I first came to the Senate. We talked a little bit about making sure that we were not managing because of

the threat of lawsuits, that we were managing under the law and

doing the best job and not because some group was going to sue

us if they did not do it their way. So good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I think Senator Smith was here.

Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you for coming to this committee.

I had an opening statement that talked about some of the continuing distress of people in rural communities in the State of Oregon. There is a particular mill there, Rough and Ready Lumber.

It is the last mill left in Josephine County. Over the last decade,

160 mills in Oregon have closed and over 30,000 Oregonians have

been laid off of work.

The irony is that this Rough and Ready mill is just a few miles

away from the Biscuit Fire, and they have announced their closure

in April because they literally have no timber. I am wondering if

you can tell me if anything can be done to expedite salvage at the

Biscuit Fire that can help keep 30 Oregonians in work.

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would be happy to discuss that. After the Biscuit Fire, obviously there have been a lot of national forest timber

that has been killed. Also, there is damage to watersheds, to wildlife habitat. We believe that the cost of the Biscuit Fire for fiscal

year 2003—we need to redirect some of the work into the Biscuit

Fire area from a restoration standpoint.

Now, they are also looking at how much of the timber volume

can be salvaged. It would be a part of that effort to rehabilitate.

We are doing the analysis, the assessment, currently to figure

out what should be done on the national forest portion of that.

Some of the things that we are proposing through administrative

changes, through the Healthy Forests Initiative—well, some are

not even part of the Healthy Forests Initiative—such as salvage of

small areas, using the categorical exclusion, 250 acres—I think is

what our proposal is. When those are finalized, those will help with

this kind of project where we will be able to do the analysis quicker

and we will be able to get the work on the ground done quicker.

That would be one example.

The region has redirected some of their dollars to the forest in

the Biscuit Fire area so that they can do the assessment and get

it done as quickly as we can.

28

I have to say, though, that part of the frustration that I have,

and that many Forest Service people have, is that we do not have

the processes in place yet—and the systems—working to get these

projects going at the rate we would like to. We are still putting an

awful lot of money, time, and effort into doing paperwork.

I am a supporter of doing analysis, the appropriate level of analysis, to make sure that we do the right things. I strongly support

the need to work with the community to make sure that they understand and are a part of the decisions on what needs to be done

there. That is how the region is trying to approach the Biscuit fire.

Mr. REY. I think the short of it, Senator, is that there is a considerable volume of material that likely will come off as salvage as

part of the recovery effort and the restoration effort there. Whether

it can be made available quickly enough to change the situation

with Rough and Ready Lumber Company is one question; a second

question is how much appellate and legal action there will be once

we have proposals on the street for people to look at since that is

not an uncontroversial portion of the world down there.

Senator SMITH. I understand that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record a letter

from the Rough and Ready Lumber Company to President Bush expressing their pain and their difficulty and their desire to continue

employing their people and staying in their industry. If I can include that in the record, I would appreciate it.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

[The letter of Rough and Ready Lumber Company follows:]

ROUGH& READY LUMBER CO.,

Cave Junction, OR, January 29, 2003.

DEAR PRESIDENT BUSH: Our family, the Krausses of Southern Oregon, is a member of your most committed supporters here in Oregon. Like so many Americans,

your Presidency brought us hope that our country could be steered onto a track of

prosperity and security. Your actions and leadership has not disappointed us. Specifically, we would like to thank you for your commitment to improving the health

of our forests and rural communities. To hear you mention the Healthy Forests Initiative as a top priority in the State of the Union was appreciated and shows that

you personally understand this environmental travesty Unfortunately however, we

have yet to see any changes from the previous policies of the Clinton Administration.

Since 1922, our family has owned and operated a sawmill in Cave Junction, which

is along Oregon’s famous Illinois River. For several weeks last summer, we lived in

fear that our community and sawmill would be lost to an out-of-control wildfire (the

Biscuit Fire), which ultimately burned half a million acres of wilderness, roadless

area, critical spotted owl habitat and key-watersheds for salmon. This fire ultimately came within four miles of our sawmill.

In August, you came to Southern Oregon and unveiled your plans to address this

crisis situation. Your comments showed a clear understanding of the plight faced

by our western forests and rural communities, as well as the importance of protecting wildlife habitat and watersheds. Your visit and your initiative gave us renewed

confidence in our future.

Unfortunately, last month our hope turned to despair when, due to a shortage of

logs, we were forced to announce the permanent closure of our mill in April. This

decision was not easy. It puts 160 families in the unemployment line. It will have

a devastating effect on the community of Cave Junction.

It is particularly distressing, and ironic, that within just a few miles of our sawmill stands enough fire-killed timber to supply our operation for several years. But

those unacceptable policies and procedures that you propose to change continue to

stand in the way of common sense and our ability to operate our family-owned business. We are being told that, despite your personal beliefs and position, persons in

your Administration are standing in the way of change. We find this disheartening

and have just about given up.

29

We have been good stewards of the land and responsible leaders in our community. We do not want to close our sawmill and lay off our employees. We want to

be part of your plan to protect our forests, wildlife, watersheds and rural communities. But without a timely commitment by persons in your Administration to fix

the Northwest Forest Plan, and to salvage and restore these ecosystems devastated

by wildfire, we will be closing our doors permanently.

We sincerely appreciate the sacrifices you have personally made by accepting the

Presidency of our great country. We wish you the very best.

Sincerely,

LEWIS N. KRAUSS

JOHN P. KRAUSS

JENNIFER KRAUSS PHILLIPPI

Senator SMITH. For fiscal year 2003, the Forest Service reduced

region 6’s funding by 12 percent, and can you describe how this

year’s request meets the needs of the State of Oregon where more

acres burned than in any other State and where I believe you are

trying to fulfill the Northwest Forest Plan?

Mr. REY. What you might be looking at there is a temporary phenomenon. In the work that we have got to do to get the Northwest

Forest Plan back on line and working again, we have probably

have got a year’s worth of regulatory work that has to be completed

before we are going to see on-the-ground results. So if we are going

to see results in that regard, it is going to be more in fiscal year

2005 than it is 2004.

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. I do not have anything to add.

Senator SMITH. Pardon me, Chief?

Mr. BOSWORTH. I say that pretty much covers what I would have

said.

Senator SMITH. Okay.

I just have one other question. The National Research Council

recently reported an alarming decrease in the capacity for advancing the science of forestry. Is this a situation the Forest Service

and its university partners can address together? Specifically are

there some things you can do with places like Oregon State that

have very excellent forestry programs to accomplish the research

that needs to be done? Is there more or less of an outreach to

places like Oregon State?

Mr. BOSWORTH. The more we can outreach to places like Oregon

State, the better off we are. Oregon State actually is a very good

partner with us in a number of research efforts. They also do a lot

in terms of evaluating some of the programs that they place in the

Forest Service, and provide advice and counsel from a scientific

basis.

More and more, because of the way our research dollars have

gone the last 10 to 15 years, we are trying to find ways of

leveraging the dollars with universities and colleges to get more of

the research at least partnered up with places like Oregon State.

Senator SMITH. I think that is smart, Chief, because my understanding is that the Forest Service is looking at significant numbers of retirements in the Forest Service that historically done this

kind of work. And I was just saying that I think the way you are

going in reaching out to universities is an excellent replacement for

the jobs that we are losing in the Forest Service to retirement. So

the more of that you can do, I think the better off we will be.

Thank you.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.

30

Chief, I want to stay with this Biscuit Fire issue because I am

still really in the dark with respect to what is going to happen substantively on this issue. Senator Smith is absolutely right about

the importance of it to our area. Congressman DeFazio, Senator

Smith, and I wrote you recently to talk about the resources. And

you have mentioned probably three times this morning how you are

going to redirect money to deal with these horrendous fires, and

the Biscuit Fire is the biggest fire that we had in the country last

year.

I would like to know exactly from where this money is going to

be redirected because, A, I am concerned that it may come from

other critical projects from our region, and that would concern me,

and B, I am not sure we are going to get the money at all under

this kind of redirection. I would like you to tell me, so we can walk

out of here today and we can tell our constituents.

The letter was sent early in February by Senator Smith, myself,

and Congressman DeFazio. We have tremendous bipartisan concern in our region about where these dollars are going to come

from. Douglas County, the Cow Creek Tribe, and others are trying

to restore thousands of these acres. Given the fact you said money

is going to be redirected, exactly where is it going to be directed

from?

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, first, I do not want to imply that dollars

that will be redirected—the places they are coming from are not

important places to be spending dollars. There are other good

projects that are proposed that we are working on. We will move

the money from those projects to these areas.

Senator WYDEN. What would those projects be?

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, I cannot give you a specific dollar for dollar. But let me give you an example. Okay? It is not an Oregon example.

But the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona had a very

large fire, the Rodeo Chedeski Fire, that was partially on their forest, partially on Indian reservation land, and it was almost the size

of the Biscuit Fire. They were pretty similar in size. The ApacheSitgreaves National Forest will be redirecting 50 percent of their

funds to work on restoration work on their forest. Now, they had

plans to do certain projects across the forest. They are going to

take those dollars and reprioritize them, 50 percent of those, to do

the high-priority things as a result of the Rodeo Chedeski Fire.

Then the region—and that region would be in Albuquerque, New

Mexico—the regional office, then, will be looking across the board

at the funds that they are distributing for the fiscal year, redirect

some funds to those places that burned, and get funds to those

high-priority areas.

The same thing is going to be happening in the Pacific Northwest

where—between the regional office, the regional forester, and the

forest supervisor—they need to look at where the dollars were

going to be spent and get those moved over.

I am not holding any dollars in Washington as sort of a slush

fund. We are getting all those dollars out to the regions. In some

cases the regional foresters then also work together to see whether

or not there are some higher priorities because of these emergency

situations.

31

So our purpose is to try to get to the highest priority places and

there are tradeoffs. I do not want to sound like I am denying that.

There are tradeoffs when we do that. But it is important to get

those dollars out there as quickly as we can to try to do the most

important restoration work that needs to be done as quickly as we

can.

Mr. REY. I think one of the reasons we are not as precise as we

would like to be is that we have not done 2003 allocations yet, for

obvious reasons. That is something we ought to come back and talk

to you about when we are at the point of doing our 2003 allocations. We would be able to show you then precisely what projects

are going to be deferred in the interest of doing rehabilitation work

on the Biscuit Fire or, in the case of New Mexico, some of the New

Mexico fires.

Senator WYDEN. Well, gentlemen, just put me down as a big

skeptic of this whole redirection concept. I am not doubting your

sincerity and your desire to figure out a way to make these tradeoffs, but I think that the chairman, Senator Smith, and all of my

colleagues are coming back to the same point. We are not going to

get these key projects done by osmosis. It is going to come through

actual resources. Chief, I think the example you gave is well and

good, and I appreciate it.

The Biscuit Fire is the biggest fire that we had, and I am still

walking out of this room unclear about how the funds under this

so-called redirection are going to get the work done. And still I am

very concerned, as Senator Smith has correctly noted, that these

dollars are going to come from other valuable projects in our region, when overall we are coming up short.

I see the light is on and I want to give you a chance to respond.

Then if I might, Mr. Chairman, just touch very briefly on one other

matter.

Mr. BOSWORTH. I just want to point out if you take the fires from

the year 2000, the fires from the year 2001, and our estimation

from the fires of 2002, and then look at the total rehabilitation and

restoration inventory that we have, it is somewhere in the vicinity

of $445 million. The only choices we have are to look at other

places and how we can adjust those priorities to try to get that rehabilitation and restoration work done.

Senator WYDEN. With all due respect, Chief, there is another attractive choice and that is changing the policy that you all have

made to zero out fire rehabilitation and restoration. I think you

will see some bipartisan interest in that.

The only other question I have for you, Chief, is there is great

bipartisan concern in our part of the country, amongst the rural

commissioners and others, about the administration’s zeroing out

the economic action programs. These have really helped a lot of

small communities. They get really tiny grants, by governmental

standards—a few thousand dollars—and they have been able to use

the segments particularly to develop new wood-related, valueadded industries.

How is the administration going to take up the slack after the

abolition of those economic action programs?

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, first, I would like to say that zeroing those

programs out is not intended to be a judgment on the value of

32

those programs. This administration’s policy has been not to fund

earmarks on a recurring basis. Economic action programs have historically been pretty heavily earmarked.

There are a number of other programs that we have that will

also help with economic action, though. One example would be the

watershed restoration authority under what we refer to as the

‘‘Wyden language’’ that allows us to spend dollars on private land

if it is going to help national forest land and the watershed. That

can also engage the community and help toward economic action.

There are hazardous fuel funds that can be spent on private

lands that can also enhance some of the economic action. We have

got contracting and cooperative agreement authority for hazardous

fuels that is flexible for executing local preference contracts that

would allow us to give preference to local people for contracts.

Also, some of the programs that came out of ‘‘Jobs in the Woods’’

from the Northwest Forest Plan are now embodied in other programs and other opportunities that we have that help. So there are

ways that we can, I think, use the myriad programs that we have

to try to achieve some help to replace some of those economic action programs. And I am sure some of them will be earmarked by

Congress and we will implement those.

Mr. REY. Another opportunity is the rural development title of

the farm bill, which Congress passed last June, which has a significant amount of mandatory funds for programs somewhat similar to

economic action programs. And my counterpart, the Under Secretary for Rural Development, Tom Dorr, is moving aggressively to

implement the farm bill’s rural development title. We have talked

about some of the kinds of projects that they would like to fund

under that authority. That might be a different subject for a different hearing on a different day. I think, probably, Tom would be

happy to come up and talk with you all about it. This is a program

that is under the Ag Committee’s jurisdiction but, nevertheless,

does a lot of rural development work.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Let me see if I can summarize on my end and see if Senator

Bingaman has any additional questions.

First, we have a situation, Mr. Rey, that Senator Cantwell had

requested regarding the investigative report on the Thirty Mile

Fire. As we understand it, you are going to release the information

to the ranking member and myself so that Senator Cantwell can

review it. It still is a rather private document, but you are going

to get it to us soon. Is that correct?

Mr. REY. It is more than a document. It is a record of about

4,000 pages or so. And we have talked with your committee counsel

on both the majority and minority side to arrange for those documents to be provided to the committee for the committee’s use.

There are materials in the record that we would be transmitting

that are sensitive under both the Freedom of Information Act and

under the Privacy Act. There is pending litigation against the Government on both bases at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I was assuming that the Senator would be

here, but in her absence, we thought it best to go ahead and lay

this forth in the record. She will be advised of this dialogue and

33

that it will be forthcoming. The committee staff will arrange it in

the proper manner as described by you and understood by our

staff.

Having said that, let me go back to an issue that I was specific

on, and maybe I would ask it in a more general way now. When

some of us go home and we see a forest that had a burn 2 years

ago, or 21⁄2 years ago, 1 year ago, and we drive by it and perhaps

people in the area talk with us about it up the road at a meeting,

I am always hearing versions of why nothing is being done with

reference to that burned piece of forest. Some have been delayed

a long time. Some are very natural and time is not excessive.

I am interested in seeing what this committee can do to help the

situations out there and not just let them languish with us not

knowing the facts. I am interested if you could submit to us some

representative proposals that you have out there for cleanup that

have been delayed by outside intervention with your idea and notions as to why that has happened.

Now, I am not asking that you do that now, but I think on some

of them, we ought to finally decide whether we should try to help

out with some legislation or whether this is just the way it is going

to be. So if there can be examples of what is causing delays that

you all think are not necessary, that you would do a better job for

the forest and for everyone concerned if you could proceed more expeditiously, if you could give us examples, that would be very helpful.

And at the same time, if you would submit examples to us of

delays in the urban interface situations where you are proposing

refurbishing and cleaning up and are being delayed by outside

intervention, examples of that and why would also be helpful.

I understand there is a difference of opinion between some citizens of this country and their groups and feelings of their groups

they belong to as what should or should not be done, but I think

some time or another, we ought to find out what we think is right

and see if there is something we should or should not be doing. So,

could you do that for us?

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to do

that. I know I do not have to convince you, but I would like to just

put a picture up on the easel there for a minute. I find it difficult

to believe that anybody that sees the forest after a burn, and sees

how this looks, could disagree with trying to do treatments in some

of these areas that would help.

What this is, this is an area where the Hayman Fire last year

burned. The area right in the middle that is green, that is the

Polhemus prescribed burn that occurred in October of 2001. You

can see that the fire was burning from the right side of the picture

toward the left. It hit that Polhemus treated area, which is about

8,000 acres, and essentially split the Hayman Fire so that it went

around both sides of that 8,000-acre tract. The only thing that is

left out there today in this municipal watershed in this portion is

the green part that we had treated. If that had been more than

8,000 acres, if it had been 20,000 acres that we had treated, that

could have been enough possibly to stop the fire cold.

In the end, this is what will take care of our huge fire costs. This

is the kind of thing that will take care of the problems that people

34

are facing. So I would be happy to get you the information if that

will help to see what kind of changes we might make together so

that we can get this kind of work done on the ground and change

the way these fires will burn in the future.

Mr. REY. Based on the timing of that work, it was done with

‘‘happy forests’’ money because it was a fiscal year 2001 project.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me talk a minute about grazing permits.

Every year, we are confronted with having to put a rider on an appropriations bill with reference to grazing permits that the NEPA

documentation has not been completed for the renewal in a timely

manner. We keep getting assurance that we will not have to do

that and we keep getting attacked by those that say we should not

do that because we are escaping environmental review. The way I

understand it, we have to continue to do it. To do otherwise gives

people an opportunity to attack grazing permittees who, through no

fault of their own, just have not been given the permit.

So could you tell us where are we with reference to that program? Are we making headway? How many more years before we

are able to say we are caught up?

Mr. BOSWORTH. Our original plan and expectation was a 15-year

program that started in 1995 that would have gotten us caught up

in 2010. We are behind in terms of the number of allotment management plans that we have, completed environmental studies on

and decisions in—about 50 percent behind.

The 2004 budget proposes a $7.3 million increase which would

give a 33-percent increase in terms of the number of decisions that

we would get made. So we are proposing some increases. We do

need to get on top of those. It is something that has to be done,

and that is why we proposed the increase in the 2004 budget.

The CHAIRMAN. Has anybody thought of submitting to us justification for not having to go through with this ordeal on permits,

or are we just going to admit for the future that we are going to

have a NEPA requirement for grazing permits? Is that where we

are?

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, without some significant policy changes,

that is where we would be. I would be more than happy to sit down

and work with you on some options that would either streamline

it or change it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there are plenty of people in the Senate

who would think this to be absurd. Yet, it has evolved not in this

administration, but it evolved from one Department. Then the

other started doing it. Now both BLM and the Forest Service are

doing it which does not seem to me to have very much merit. It

just delays things and spends a lot of money.

Mr. BOSWORTH. The most important thing from my perspective

is that we work carefully to make sure that the grazing program

that we have is of benefit to the land and to economy, and that we

take the right kind of approach that does not create damage. We

can do that, I think, with a whole lot less analysis and paperwork

than what we are doing right now.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a last question that I am going to submit.

I just want to call it to your attention as one that is important in

my submissions. It has to do with the Apache-Sitgreaves and the

GMUG National Forests. I will just submit it, and if you would not

35

mind giving that your special attention. There are some questions

about the funding and the like. Would you do that please?

Mr. REY. I would be happy to respond.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions.

Oh, Senator Cantwell is here. Senator, I was about to recess, and

you were not yet here. In your absence we established in the record

on your behalf that they are going to submit the documentation

that you had sought with reference to the Thirty Mile Fire. The

record now says they are going to get it to us, the full document,

with the understanding that it is not to be made totally public but

is for your private use for your perusal. Senator Bingaman and I

will submit the request, and they already telling us the response

will be to submit it.

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I follow up

with a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. I know the committee’s time is

important here and so I apologize. I was hearing from some local

constituents on this very issue and budget in my office just now.

Mr. Rey, I wonder if you could be more specific on when exactly

we would get a copy of that redacted information?

Mr. REY. The record is being copied in Portland now. It is about

4,000 pages. It would be unredacted because that is what you are

asking for. The total record is somewhere around 4,000 pages. So

as soon as we can make the copies, execute the exchange of correspondence, you should have it. It should only be a matter of several days I would hope.

The actions were finally completed on February 6, last Thursday.

So our deliberative process is completed. The 11 employees against

whom actions were taken still have some rights of appeal, but at

least insofar as the agency’s actions, they are now final.

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we will appreciate getting that in 11

days. I just want to make clear for the record this committee has

sought this information since last summer. At a previous hearing,

it was promised to us in August. The committee, under the auspices of the chairman and ranking member, sent a written letter

that was never responded to asking for the information.

I understand that there are sensitivities as they relate to the disciplinary action taken against individuals, but critical to this entire

process is to also understand what changes have been made by the

Forest Service and that a certain group of employees have not just

been made scapegoats for what might be a larger systemic problem

within the Forest Service.

I very much appreciate the chairman asking that question and

the fact that we now have a new commitment to have that information before us for our private use. It is something to which I would

like the chairman and the ranking member to continue to pay attention because I believe it is a larger problem than just that experienced at the Thirty Mile Fire.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask another question here about

the budget and the Northwest Forest Plan because—again, pardon

my absence and for not hearing your whole testimony in person—

but our State has probably done the most aggressive of any work

on habitat conservation plans, with various timber interests workVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:41 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86-299 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
36

ing together in the Pacific Northwest. So we are not very interested

in seeing that plan opened up. Is that your intention to try to reopen the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan?

Mr. REY. Not to reopen it—to see if we can make the plan work

under its original terms by modifying some of the procedural aspects of the plan. To the extent we do any of that, though, it will

be through a notice and comments on rulemaking process, so everybody will get a fair chance to evaluate whether what we are proposing is not within the four corners of the forest plan or whether

it is. Our intention is to stay within the four corners of the forest

plan but try to get it back to the point where it was 4 or 5 years

ago when it was producing not only the environmental protections

that were promised, but the output commitments that were promised as well.

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I think that we have had a lot of private sector or forest owners go to great lengths to come to the table

and implement plans that we think are very positive for the Northwest. There is a lot of anxiety and concern about the President’s

timber plan as it relates to harvesting, which might threaten clean

water and salmon preservation in the Northwest. So we will be

watching very diligently and believe that the plan should move

ahead as is.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bingaman.

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me ask about Community Forest Restoration very briefly. We passed the Community Forest Restoration

Act back in 2000 and that established a forest health demonstration program in New Mexico that you folks have committed about

$5 million a year to since that time. Do you intend to continue with

that funding level in the next fiscal year?

Mr. REY. Yes. It is our anticipation to continue to fund it at current levels.

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me ask about the local hiring preference

that we wrote into the law. There is a provision in the law essentially saying that local contractors are to be given some preference

in performing forest health related activities.

It came to my attention that the work there at the Santa Fe watershed is not by a local contractor. I am not criticizing your choice

there because I know nothing about the particular contractor that

was chosen, but I was curious as to whether you are in fact taking

steps to actually be sure that local contractors know about these

opportunities and get every opportunity to take advantage of this

local preference.

Mr. REY. The program manager for the collaborative forest restoration project is doing a significant amount of outreach to make

sure that, to the extent possible, we are using local contractors for

the projects.

On the Santa Fe watershed, it is my understanding that once we

negotiated through the appeals process to the specific kinds of

treatments that were going to be allowed, we needed some specialized equipment that local contractors did not possess.

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. I believe there was only one bid that was

submitted on the Santa Fe watershed, is my understanding.

37

Senator BINGAMAN. I do think it is important to try to be sure

that local contractors know about these opportunities and bid

wherever possible. Obviously I do not know the specifics of this

case.

Mr. BOSWORTH. And we will continue to do what we can do to

try to emphasize that local aspect.

Senator BINGAMAN. One other thing I would mention. Senator

Domenici and I both worked very hard to get this legislation that

is going to the President presumably in the next couple of days related to the Sandia Mountain settlement, and that gives you a substantial additional responsibility to manage that new relationship.

Is that something that you feel ready and willing to do?

Mr. REY. You send us laws. We are always ready and willing to

implement them, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. They relish it, Senator. They have been waiting

anxiously for it.

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, we are glad they are going to get it finally.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad we gave it to them——

Senator BINGAMAN. Right, and not us.

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Instead of in our offices.

[Laughter.]

Senator BINGAMAN. I agree.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything further?

Senator BINGAMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator.

We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(39)

APPENDIX

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

[Note: Responses to the following questions were not received at

the time the hearing went to press].

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON RECOVERY

The President’s FY 2004 request for NOAA-Fisheries includes $90 million to recover coastal salmon runs and the Interior Department has proposed an $8 million

increase in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery program, which will fund

hatchery improvements in the Pacific Northwest. Other federal agencies have also

requested funds for salmon recovery in FY 2004. The Forest Service is the single

largest land manager in Washington State, yet it appears that the FY 2004 budget

contains no new funding dedicated for salmon recovery.

Question 1. In addition to funding for base operations for National Forests in the

Northwest, does the Forest Service’s FY 2004 budget include any funding specifically intended for Pacific salmon recovery?

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL PRIVATE LANDOWNERS

I appreciate the Forest Service’s commitment to working with private landowners

and the proposed increase in the Forest Legacy Program. This voluntary program

gives landowners the option to sell their lands or interests in their lands for conservation purposes.

However, many landowners wish to keep private lands in private ownership and

be good stewards of their lands. That is why Congress last year established the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) in the 2002 Farm Bill. FLEP is a voluntary

program administered through the states that is designed to provide non-industrial

private landowners the tools they need to manage private lands.

Question 2. The Farm Bill authorized this program at $20 million annually, starting in FY 2003. However, on January 7, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget proposed a 40% reduction in funding for FLEP in FY 2003 to $8 million. Can

you provide information as to the rationale for this cut?

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

Question 3. The 1994 Pacific Northwest Forest Plan has provided important benefits to the Pacific Northwest by providing a level of certainty and stability that did

not exist immediately prior to the adoption of the plan. Mr. Rey has indicated that

the Forest Service plans to propose a rulemaking ‘‘within the four corners of the

plan’’ to provide additional timber harvest within the next year. Please provide information regarding the scope and timing of the proposed rule.

ROADLESS RULE

Question 4. Mr. Rey, you indicated that the U.S. Forest Service is currently developing a draft roadless area rule. Please provide additional information about the

scope and timing of your proposed rulemaking.

HEALTHY FOREST INITIATIVE—CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

In 1998, half of the Forest Service’s timber harvest was categorized by the agency

as furthering stewardship purposes. The principal stewardship goal of these sales

was to reduce hazardous fuels.

40

Question 5. The Healthy Forest Initiative would allow for stewardship sales to

proceed via categorical exclusions. Therefore, under the Healthy Forest Initiative,

these sales would proceed without any environmental analysis or public involvement

under NEPA. Further, these sales would be exempt from citizen appeal. Thus,

under the Forest Service’s proposal, approximately half of the Forest Service’s timber program would be exempt from NEPA and administrative appeal. Is this the

case?

CASCADE CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

Question 6. For the last several years, the Forest Service has included funds in

its budget requests to acquire lands in conjunction with the Cascade Conservation

Partnership. This partnership is an innovative program involving a private landowner, local conservation organizations and private donors. The FY 2004, however,

included no funds for this worthy project. In addition to a general reduction in National Forest land acquisition, are there any specific reasons why the FY 2004 budget did not include funds for this program?

FUNDING FOR FIRE FIGHTER SAFETY AND TRAINING

I understand that money for firefighter safety and training is contained in the

Forest Service’s wildfire preparedness account. And while I’m pleased that the

President’s request includes more money for this function than last year, you will

also recall that during this Committee’s hearing on the Fiscal Year 2003 budget, I

asked you whether the Forest Service tracks on a region by region basis how much

it spends for safety and training purposes. You said that you would get us that information ‘‘for the record,’’ and that ‘‘I think related to the findings of the Thirtymile

incident, we will be increasing some of our safety and training programs.’’ However,

it later came to light that the Forest Service didn’t actually track these figures. At

a May 7 hearing on wildland fire preparedness, Mr. Joel Holtrup, the Forest Service’s Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, told me that ‘‘we do not track specifically yet how much we invest in safety per se. We are able to get that figure,

but we do not have a database that does that specifically. We are developing one

that will do that . . . . but we can get back to you on that question.’’

Question 7. To date, I don’t believe we have officially heard back on those numbers, and it’s not clear from reading this budget that you have put the database Mr.

Holtrup alluded to in place. Do you now keep track of those numbers? If so, how

much will you spend this year on training-related activities, and how do you think

this compares to previous years? If not, how can you commit to me that the Forest

Service is taking the effort to refornl its firefighter safety programs seriously when

the budget for fire preparedness is actually being cut?

OSHA PARTNERSHIP

Question 8. At various hearings this Committee held last year, we explored with

the Forest Service the notion of entering into a partnership with OSHA to help ensure that improved safety policies and procedures were actually being implemented.

At one point—a May 7, 2002 hearing on wildland fire preparedness—Mr. Jerry Williams, the Forest Service director of fire and aviation management, assured me that

an OSHA partnership was an option the agency was pursuing. Mr. Williams said

that ‘‘we are anxious to do anything we can to improve firefighter safety, including

partnerships with OSHA.’’ And that ‘‘we are working with the region, the region is

working with the local region of OSHA, and I believe that they are pursuing this’’

partnership. Can you tell me whether the Forest Service has in fact entered into

such a partnership. And if not, why?

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

GRAZING AND DROUGHT

Last year the drought forced some forests in New Mexico to pull the cattle and

sheep off the grazing allotments, on very short notice, early in the year. We need

an update on what the Forest Service plans to do if the drought continues.

Question 1. Last year, due to drought, you shut down grazing very early, and on

very short notice, forcing grazing permit holders off the National Forests in New

Mexico. I assume we agree that the drought is still with us. What are you planning

to do about this, this year?

41

Question 2. What have you done to keep the permit holders up to date on your

plans, so they have some time to plan alternatives if you have to close the allotments again this year?

Question 3. I also know that you understand there is a tremendous backlog of

grazing permit applications that must have NEPA documentation completed before

they can be renewed. Will you give me your assurance that you will not close any

permits during the time it takes to clear up the backlog of these permits?

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION

Question 1. Chief Bosworth, in your submitted testimony you discussed the ‘‘gridlock and analysis paralysis’’ that you feel hinders your management objectives. But

how do you expect to enhance collaboration and trust when you propose sweeping

changes in the expansion of Categorical Exclusions for hazardous fuels reduction

projects? You set no parameters on their scope: they can be inside or outside the

Wildland Urban Interface, take large and green trees—even old growth—and there

are no requirements for thinning from below. How do you defend yourself to the environmental critics without environmental standards?

FIRE SUPPRESSION

Question 2. Given the National Interagency Fire Center’s predictions regarding

the severity of this summer’s wildfire season, what steps are being taken NOW to

reduce and mitigate the effects upon our most vulnerable communities in the

Wildland Urban Interface?

Question 3. The Forest Service wants to spend over $1.5 billion managing wildfire

in this budget. But according to a report produced last year by the Forest Service,

firefighting crews were buying $10 pens, L.L. Bean tents, carpet for campsites, and

getting paid overtime to go sightseeing. What are you doing to assure that such

abuses of the taxpayers trust do not happen again?

Question 4. If you are going to salvage log in southern Oregon, it needs to occur

only in those areas already designated as appropriate for timber harvesting—not in

Wilderness, Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves or other ecologically sensitive management areas. Can you provide the citizens of Oregon assurances that

you will adhere to these limitations on salvage logging in southern Oregon?

Question 5. The Biscuit Fire last summer devastated almost 500,000 acres in

southern Oregon, destroyed four homes, and required evacuation of 17,000 residents. Yet, the Medford airtanker base used by the Forest Service for aerial firefighting in the area remains slated for permanent closure. Many in the Rogue and

Illinois valleys remain deeply concerned about the constant and serious threat of

catastrophic fires in Southwestern Oregon. Don’t you think it would be reckless and

shortsighted to close this base?

AERIAL FIRE FIGHTER SAFETY

Question 6. During the 2002 fire season, we saw three crashes of contracted aircraft (two airtankers and one helicopter) which resulted in five fatalities. We need

to be committed to doing what is necessary to avoid the senseless death of these

men and women protecting our homes and our natural resources. An Interagency

Blue Ribbon panel determined that aircraft age, insufficient maintenance, and insufficient oversight by federal agencies contributed to these avoidable tragedies.

What is the Forest Service doing to remedy the problem?

Question 7. The Blue Ribbon panel on aerial firefighting safety raised serious concerns regarding the safety of the contracted fleet of airtankers as well as of the lead

planes. In response, you permanently grounded the oldest airtankers, and temporarily grounded the remaining33 airtankers, pending analysis by Sandia labs. Recent analyses by independent labs has determined that the lead plane fleet is nearing its lifetime operating hours—and has possibly only two seasons of service left.

Will your agency have the necessary aviation resources available for this year’s fire

season? Is there anything this committee can do to help the Forest Service assure

these planes and tankers are ready for their duties in what promises to be another

summer of intense fires?

Question 8. The aging airtanker fleet needs to be replaced. In your agency’s response to the Blue Ribbon panel’s findings, you are examining various options, including federal purchase of newer C-130-Echos with removable tanks, retaining current contractors and requiring greater oversight, purchasing new, purpose-built

planes, or turning the whole aerial firefighting mission over to National Guard and

42

Airforce Reserve units. While I certainly agree we need to assure the wise use of

our federal funds, we need to make sure that safety is not sacrificed in the name

of least-cost efficiency. Where do you stand in this long range planning?

ECONOMIC ACTION PROGRAM

Question 9. Rural communities in Oregon have been able to use the EAP to build

their capacity to find long-term solutions to environmental and economic problems.

It has also enabled communities to be good partners with the Forest Service. A couple of years ago, this Committee’s subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management, heard testimony regarding this program’s success. Oregon’s Economic Development Department testified then about how EAP had helped timber dependent

communities in my state attract new businesses and develop new wood related industries. The money was small—often in grants of just a few thousand dollars. But

this was often enough to leverage additional funds and provide some enterprising

community member the opportunity to start a new business. In the absence of the

EAP, how does the Administration and the Forest Service plan to help rural communities adjacent to National Forest lands?

Question 10. Recently, the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the University of Oregon released a report on the business and employment impacts of the National Fire

Plan in 2001. The report found a small increase in the value of contracts awarded

to local contractors. This is a very positive trend. However, we have heard that the

use of larger contracts is increasing—making it difficult for smaller and local businesses to compete. In light of this disturbing trend, how will the Forest Service ensure we are getting the best value for the important restoration and hazardous fuel

reduction work that needs to be done? Or is the National Fire Plan simply a full

employment program for corporate interests?

Question 11. What do you think the impact will be from focusing all of the funding

on suppression and not making investments in rehabilitation and restoration? Isn’t

this short-sighted? What will be the impact on the ecological landscape as well as

on our communities? Dirty water? Non-native invasive species? Landslides?

Question 12. In terms of the Forest Service’s stewardship contracting pilot program, there has been significant progress through the multi-party monitoring

teams. It has been an important part of building trust. How does the Forest Service

budget reflect its commitment to multi-party monitoring and collaboration? How will

the budget reward people in the field for collaboration?

OTHER ISSUES

Question 13. Staffing on Oregon’s 13 National Forests have seen dramatic cuts

since 1990: over 40% on average. Some Forests, like the Siskiyou—site of last summer’s 500,000 Biscuit Fire—have suffered force reductions of over 60%. Yet, your

Agency proposes more active and aggressive management of these Forests in the

name of restoring forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland fire.

At the same time, under the Department of Agriculture’s ‘‘Field Leadership Decisions Initiative,’’ the Forest Service states a goal of competitive sourcing 11,000 positions by the end of FY 2005. What are you doing to assure that such sourcing is

not compromising management goals and putting Oregon communities and our national treasures at risk?

QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question. Secretary Rey, last year I wrote to you regarding forest restoration work

on the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico. As you know, Otero County has been

involved in putting together a local collaborative group to work with the local forest

officials on forest health and restoration activities. You were very helpful in helping

to provide initial funding for this work, as well as related work on forests in Arizona

and Colorado. Last month, the Senate adopted Senator Domenici’s amendment to

allow hazardous fuels reduction funds to be used for this county partnership restoration program. With the fire season approaching, can you tell us if you intend

to make sufficient funds available this year to maintain these collaborative efforts?

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question 1. The 2002 Biscuit Fire in Oregon resulted in a significant amount of

wildlife habitat being burned but there was little impact to the marbled murrelet.

According to a Forest Service wildlife biologist quoted in a news article, the primary

habitat for the murrelet is in the fog zone. Yet, tens of thousands of acres inland

43

have been designated as critical habitat and were affected by the Biscuit Fire. Will

the designation of marbled murrelet habitat be reviewed?

Question 2. U.S. Forest Service Fire and Aviation managers and the recent Blue

Ribbon panel findings suggest Type 1 heavy-lift helicopters could replace some of

the fixed-wing airtankers that have been grounded due to safety concerns. Has the

Forest Service examined the possibility of using Type I helicopters; has any action

been taken to secure the use of these helicopters during the upcoming fire season?

Æ