HR 1904 RFS 
‘‘(B) community-based planning, involve-
ment, and action through State, local and non-
profit partnerships; 
‘‘(C) application of and dissemination of 
monitoring information on forestry best-man-
agement practices relating to watershed for-
estry; 
‘‘(D) watershed-scale forest management 
activities and conservation planning; and 
‘‘(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined 
by the States) and stream-side forests and the 
establishment of riparian vegetative buffers. 
‘‘(4) COST-SHARING.—Funds provided under 
this subsection for a watershed forestry project may 
not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project. 
Other Federal funding sources may be used to cover 
a portion of the remaining project costs, but the 
total Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90 
percent. The non-Federal share of the costs of a 
project may be in the form of cash, services, or other 
in-kind contributions. 
‘‘(5) PRIORITIZATION.—The State Forest Stew-
ardship Coordinating Committee for a State shall 
prioritize watersheds in that State to target water-
shed forestry projects funded under this subsection.
HR 1904 RFS 
‘‘(6) WATERSHED
FORESTER.—Financial and 
technical assistance shall be made available to the 
State Forester or equivalent State official to create 
a State best-management practice forester to lead 
statewide programs and coordinate small watershed-
level projects. 
‘‘(d) DISTRIBUTION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall devote 
at least 75 percent of the funds appropriated for a 
fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appro-
priations in subsection (e) to the cost-share program 
under subsection (c) and the remainder to the task 
of delivering technical assistance, education, and 
planning on the ground through the State Forester 
or equivalent State official. 
‘‘(2) SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS.—Distribution 
of these funds by the Secretary among the States 
shall be made only after giving appropriate consider-
ation to—
‘‘(A) the acres of nonindustrial private 
forestland and highly erodible land in each 
State; 
‘‘(B) each State’s efforts to conserve for-
ests;
HR 1904 RFS 
‘‘(C) the acres of forests in each State that 
have been lost or degraded or where forests can 
play a role in restoring watersheds; and 
‘‘(D) the number of nonindustrial private 
forest landowners in each State. 
‘‘(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
2008.’’. 
TITLE IV—INSECT 
INFESTATIONS 
SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this title: 
(1) APPLIED
SILVICULTURAL
ASSESSMENT.—
The term ‘‘applied silvicultural assessment’’ means 
any vegetative or other treatment, for the purposes 
described in section 402, including timber harvest, 
thinning, prescribed burning, and pruning, as single 
treatment or any combination of these treatments. 
(2) FEDERAL
LANDS.—The term ‘‘Federal 
lands’’ means—
(A) National Forest System lands; and 
(B) public lands administered by the Sec-
retary of the Interior, acting through the Bu-
reau of Land Management.
HR 1904 RFS 
(3) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Sec-
retary concerned’’ means—
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
through the Forest Service, with respect to Na-
tional Forest System lands; and 
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through appropriate offices of the United States 
Geological Survey, with respect to federally 
owned land administered by the Secretary of 
the Interior. 
(4) 1890 INSTITUTIONS.—The term ‘‘1890 In-
stitution’’ means a college or university eligible to 
receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 
U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee University. 
(b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) High levels of tree mortality due to insect 
infestation result in—
(A) increased fire risk; 
(B) loss of old growth; 
(C) loss of threatened and endangered spe-
cies; 
(D) loss of species diversity; 
(E) degraded watershed conditions;
HR 1904 RFS 
(F) increased potential for damage from 
other agents of disturbance, including exotic, 
invasive species; and 
(G) decreased timber values. 
(2) Bark beetles destroy hundreds of thousands 
of acres of trees each year. In the West, over 
21,000,000 acres are at high risk of bark beetle in-
festation and in the South over 57,000,000 acres are 
at risk across all land ownerships. Severe drought 
conditions in many areas of the South and West will 
increase risk of bark beetle infestations. 
(3) The hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying 
streamside forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and 
Appalachian region, threatening water quality and 
sensitive aquatic species, and posing a potential 
threat to valuable commercial timber lands in North-
ern New England. 
(4) The emerald ash borer is a nonnative, 
invasive pest that has quickly become a major threat 
to hardwood forests as a emerald ash borer infesta-
tion is almost always fatal to the affected trees. This 
pest threatens to destroy over 692,000,000 ash trees 
in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone, and between 
five and ten percent of urban street trees in the 
Upper Midwest.
HR 1904 RFS 
(5) Epidemic populations of Southern pine bee-
tle are ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Flor-
ida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001, 
Florida and Kentucky experienced 146 percent and 
111 percent increases, respectively, in beetle popu-
lations. 
(6) These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine 
beetle have forced private landowners to harvest 
dead and dying trees, in both rural areas and in-
creasingly urbanized settings. 
(7) According to the Forest Service, recent out-
breaks of the red oak borer in Arkansas have been 
unprecedented, with almost 800,000 acres infested 
at population levels never seen before. 
(8) Much of the damage from the red oak borer 
has taken place in National forests, and the Federal 
response has been inadequate to protect forest eco-
systems and other ecological and economic resources. 
(9) Previous silvicultural assessments, while 
useful and informative, have been limited in scale 
and scope of application, and there has not been suf-
ficient resources available to adequately test a full 
array of individual and combined applied silvicul-
tural assessments.