[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FY'03 FOREST SERVICE PROGRAM BUDGET
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 12, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-92
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-152 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 12, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.............................................. 3
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Prepared statement of................... 1
Peterson, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FY'03 FOREST SERVICE PROGRAM BUDGET
----------
Tuesday, March 12, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 4:08 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John E.
Peterson presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN E. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Peterson [presiding]. Good afternoon. I am Congressman
Peterson from the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, the
Subcommittee Vice Chair filling in for our Chairman, Mr.
McInnis, for the moment. We will call to order the Committee on
Resources' Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health for our
oversight hearing on the Fiscal Year 2003 Forest Service
Program Budget.
Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member can make opening statements. If any other
members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent.
Mr. Peterson. At this time, I will share with you Mr.
McInnis' statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health
The Forest Service provides leadership in the management,
protection and use of the nation's forests and rangelands. The mission
of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
of present and future generations needs. Through implementation of land
and resource management plans, the agency ensures sustainable
ecosystems by restoring and maintaining species diversity and
ecological productivity that helps provide recreation, water, timber,
minerals, fish, wildlife, wilderness, and aesthetic values for current
and future generations of people.
Through technical and financial assistance, the USDA Forest Service
assists States and private landowners in practicing good stewardship,
promoting rural economic development, and improving the natural
environment of cities and communities. The agency continues to develop
and use the best available scientific information to facilitate
achievement of our goals and objectives. Domestic and international
activities are directed at developing values, products, and services in
such a way as to maintain ecosystem health.
Today we will take a closer look at the Forest Service's budget for
the coming fiscal year which provides the means of achieving these
important objectives. As always, it's a pleasure to have the Chief
before the Subcommittee, and I look forward to hearing from Mr.
Bosworth today.
Following an unusually heavy fire season in 2000, the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Interior produced a National Fire Plan and were
funded an additional $1.8 billion by Congress to identify and begin
implementing a long-term solution to the U.S. wildfire problem.
Congress renewed that commitment last year. While very real progress
has been made in battling the forest fire problem, many issues still
remain.
Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office issued the latest
in a long-line of reports criticizing the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture for failing to adequately integrate their efforts to reduce
the menacing specter of catastrophic forest fires. The GAO asserted in
its January report that this lack of meaningful coordination continues
to hamper the efficiency and effectiveness of the National Fire Plan.
Without strong leadership the program fails to live up to
expectations.
LLittle progress will be made in reducing fuel loads in
the wildland urban interface. Communities will continue to be at risk
of devastation by catastrophic fires.
LStates will be inadequately involved in identifying
communities at risk and in planning strategies for meeting plan
objectives.
LProjects will be tied up in the analysis paralysis that
plagues the agency.
As the Members of this Subcommittee remember well, the GAO offered
a similar criticism of the relevant Departments and Agencies before our
panel last summer. At the time, I put the then newly staffed
Departments of Interior and Agriculture on notice--either fix the
problem or Congress will fix it for you. The fix that I suggested at
the time was the establishment of a National Fire Czar, a National Fire
Council or some other inter-agency structure whose role would be to
bring uniformity and consistency to federal wildland fire policy.
Today, nearly nine months after I first issued it, I reiterate that
ultimatum--if the involved agencies do not move quickly and
aggressively to create the institutional structures needed to fully
integrate National Fire Plan efforts, Congress stands ready to assume
the leadership role.
The obvious way for Congress to remedy these implementation
inadequacies is to enact the principles outlined in a December 2001
National Academy of Public Administration report, which called for the
creation of a National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation Council.
Whether through a National Fire Council or a National Fire Czar, it is
clear that a new administrative entity in some form is needed to pull
together the focus, efforts and energies of the disparate federal
agencies which implement the National Fire Plan.
It is my understanding that various proposals to establish an
inter-agency, inter-disciplinary National Fire Council are floating
around within the Administration on various levels. This is very good
news. But while these proposals sound meritorious and laudable based on
the information I have received, the time for proposals is long since
passed. Fire season is nearly upon us and the time for action is now.
Later this spring, this Subcommittee will hold oversight hearings
specifically focused on National Fire Plan implementation. If an inter-
agency fire council or its equivalent has not been created through
administrative direction by this time, rest assured that legislation
built on the principles outlined by the National Academy of Public
Administration will begin moving through this Committee.
Historically, the agency has also been beleaguered by financial
accountability and performance management problems. The GAO testified
in February 2000 that the Forest Service is taking actions to address
known problems with its financial management and reporting. Despite
these efforts, major hurdles to achieving financial accountability
remain. The agency remains unable to reliably track major assets worth
billions of dollars, accurately allocate revenues and costs to its
programs in its financial reports and accurately prepare its financial
statements. There are also numerous financial reporting errors and
major internal control weaknesses.
According to the GAO, while the Forest Service has made
considerable progress toward improved performance management, much
difficult work remains. The agency still faces several major hurdles
before it can provide accurate and timely information on how much of
its funds are spent on specific strategic goals and objectives and what
is accomplished with the money. The agency's annual performance
measures often do not adequately indicate the outcomes the agency
intends to achieve. As a result, they do not always encourage progress
toward the agency's strategic goals and objectives and are not clearly
linked to the long-term performance measures.
I know that, under the tutelage of Mr. Bosworth and Secretary
Veneman, real strides have been made in restoring needed accountability
to the Forest Service's finances. I look forward to hearing about that
progress as well as what future steps will be taken to ensure that the
Forest Service's financial house is in order.
Although the agency has continued to improve its financial
accountability and performance management, given its history, continued
vigilance seems appropriate. I will request that GAO review the
progress and describe the work that remains for the Forest Service to
achieve financial accountability and improve performance management. I
would hope to have that review completed by the end of this calendar
year.
The integrity of the entire Forest Service has been compromised by
unprofessional, unethical behavior of a few employees. The agency is
faced with the task of restoring their credibility.
The President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget proposes includes several
major shifts between and within programs areas as well as new
initiatives and programs and elimination of other programs.
The Economic Assistance Program, benefitting local communities has
been eliminated.
Increased funding of the FIA program and other priority shifts
within Research and Development will result in the closure of several
labs and the termination of research projects.
Another issue that I am especially interested in is this Charter
Forest proposal. In an attempt to streamline the decision-making
process, the Administration proposed to establish ``charter forests,''
to test new management, budget, contracting and governance techniques.
I know my Colleague Tom Udall is very interested in this issue. The two
of us sent a letter to the Chief last year suggesting that the Forest
Service should begin testing new and innovative approaches to
management the nation's forest resources. We look forward to hearing
about the proposal especially how it will streamline the natural
resources decision-making process, establishing scientific accuracy,
accountability, accessibility, trust-building, and efficiency in the
planning process.
Other legislative proposals include: fireplain easements, permanent
authority for recreation fee demonstration program, increased timber
competition and revised schedule for ski fees.
It is with this that I welcome Mr. Bosworth and thank him for
taking the time to appear before our Subcommittee. We look forward to
hearing from the Forest Service on the administrations strategy for
managing the nation's forest. I know the hearing will be a constructive
dialogue, one that I look forward to continuing with Mr. Bosworth, Mr.
Inslee and the other Members of this Subcommittee in the coming weeks,
months and years.
______
Mr. Peterson. I now recognize Mr. Inslee, the Ranking
Minority Member, for any statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for
coming to the hearing. These are very important procedures
because this is obviously where the rubber meets the road. It
is not just more policy rhetoric, but we are dealing with real
numbers here. So, we appreciate the opportunity to talk with
you.
I just wanted to mention three things: First, concern about
our enormous gap between our needs for maintenance and
decommission arose and our existing budget. I am sure that all
of us recognize that that is a large gap. But to put it in
perspective, I was just now meeting, by coincidence with a
couple of constituents who have been working with the Forest
Service for 4 years to do an inventory of the needs in one
little, teeny, tiny patch of the Forest Service on the Hood
Canal, west of Hood Canal in the Olympic National Forest.
The needs there are conservatively estimated at about 1200
miles of significant decommissioning. As far as I can tell, I
am advised that the entire budget for the entire nation is
about 1500 miles. So, we can almost consume the entire
maintenance decommissioning budget, I think, next to my little
district, which would be fine with me, by the way, but Mr. Byrd
may disagree in the Senate or that other chamber.
That is disturbing because I am hearing more and more that
the biggest polluter of our water is us, is the Federal
Government in our siltation problem with our salmon problem it
is particularly acute in the State of Washington. So, I will be
interested in your comments about what is the most realistic
way we can boost that commitment to take care of our old roads
instead of just building new ones.
My second issue is our Roadless Area policy, obviously, so
you can tell us where the agency is because many of us think it
is more important perhaps to fix the roof or the barn that is
terribly leaking before we put on another addition. Given the
nature of the extreme damage that we are doing with our
existing roads, many of us think that that should be our
national priority.
The third issue I am interested in, if you can make
comments about our fire safety response, we still would like to
know in the best way you can tell us as to how this response,
we hope, will be different than past responses to past
tragedies, and if you can bring them up to speed on your
efforts in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the Ranking Member.
I would like to introduce our witnesses today. We have only
one panel, Chief Dale Bosworth, in the middle, accompanied by
Ms. Sally Collins, Associate Chief, USDA Forest Service and Mr.
Hank Kashdan, Director of Program and Budget Analysis from the
Forest Service.
Since we only have one panel, you are not limited to 5
minutes. I will limit the members to 5 minutes in their
questions. I will rotate. They can have as many 5 minutes as
they want, but only five at a time so everybody gets a chance.
So, without any further adieu, we welcome the panel and please
proceed. Make sure you are close to the mikes.
Mr. Otter. Mr. Chairman, I would only observe that there
are as many members here, we could both have the 5-minute limit
taken off.
Mr. Peterson. We will reserve the decision on that.
STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF, USDA FOREST SERVICE;
ACCOMPANIED BY SALLY COLLINS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, USDA FOREST
SERVICE; HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS,
USDA FOREST SERVICE AND ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bosworth. Well, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today
to talk about the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget for the
Forest Service. As you said, I am accompanied here today by
Forest Service Associate Chief, Sally Collins, and Hank
Kashdan, who is the Director for our Program and Budget
Analysis Staff.
As I said, it is a privilege to be here. There is a lot
going on in the Forest Service and I am really anxious to
answer your questions. But there are a few things I would like
to say first. I do want to start off by saying that just a
couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of going to Utah and
visiting Utah during the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and
the surrounding area.
There were two Olympic winter games that were signature
events that were held on National Forest land, the Downhill and
the Super `G'. They were held at the Snow Basin ski resort
which is located on the Ogden Ranger District of the Wasatch-
Cache National Forest. The Forest Service's main goal for the
2002 Olympic Winter Games was to help ensure that Olympic-
related activities on the National Forests were safe and
environmentally responsible.
There were a lot of dedicated Forest Service employees
there, cooperators as well as Forest Service employees and
volunteers that worked really, really to make sure that those
goals were met. I am happy to report to the Subcommittee that
those goals were and we were part of a very successful event.
So, I am very proud of the work that the Forest Service people
contributed to that.
What I would like to do is just briefly summarize the
testimony and then submit the full testimony for the record.
The Fiscal Year 2003 President's budget request for the Forest
Service is almost $4.9 billion. Now, with this level of
funding, we are going to be emphasizing protecting the public,
employees, property, and resources. We are going to be
providing benefits to employees. We are improving forest and
rangeland health and we are going to be meeting the growing
recreation demands for goods and services and other kinds of
amenities by the public.
One of the things I am going to be putting a lot of focus
on and a lot of folks in my agency are going to be putting a
lot of focus on has to do with the process gridlock that we are
engaged in. I want to focus a lot of attention on
reestablishing a bias in favor of accomplishing the work of the
Forest Service, which is work to be done on the ground.
The process paralysis, the analysis paralysis is directly
affecting our ability to protect communities from catastrophic
wild fires. It is affecting us in terms of providing
communities with a sustainable flow of forest products. It
affects us in terms of putting employees in the field on the
ground where they really need to be.
We are going to be concentrating on the restoration of
ecosystems to fire-adapted conditions. We need your support,
and we appreciate your support in the funding of the National
Fire Plan in the past. We are going to continue a focus, a
primary focus on reducing the number of communities that are at
extreme risk from wildland fire. Hazardous fuels reduction is
the critical component of the National Fire Plan, in my
judgment.
It is going to require a sustained effort over a number of
years in order to work around these communities in order to
reduce the fuels hazards and the potential for disastrous fires
around the communities. We are going to be doing that and we
have been doing that in cooperation with the Department of
Interior and other parties, including the States.
There are just a few things I want to rattle off since in
your opening remarks you talked about our cooperation with the
Department of Interior. We are working together to achieve the
goals of the Department of Interior for the National Fire Plan.
We have created a National Fire Plan. Coordinating teams are
providing leadership in different areas of implementing the
plan.
We developed a 10-year comprehensive strategy. We are
completing the implementation plan. We identified communities
at risk. We have been finalizing the Inter-Agriculture cohesive
strategy. We are developing complimentary budget requests. We
will develop a new planning analysis process and we will invest
in applied research. We will collaborate with the States and
other partners. These are the things that we have been doing
with the Department of Interior.
The Forest Service plays a key role in maintaining benefits
to communities. The type of opportunities that we are going to
be engaged in will be based on the local needs, on what local
people feel and local interests, while we remain consistent
with the agency's mission and priorities.
I want to say something about invasive species because in
the coming months I intend to focus more on invasive species
and the invasive species problems. It is going to be an
important and major part of the agency's future efforts. I
think that there is a huge amount of ecological and economic
impact from invasive species and I believe in the future we are
going to have to pay a whole lot more attention to that.
So, in my agency I want to put more focus on that in the
future. This pretty much concludes my opening remarks. I would
be happy to take any questions that you might have.
Thank you.
Statement of Dale Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Chairman McInnis and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget for the
Forest Service. I am accompanied by Forest Service Associate Chief
Sally Collins and Director of Program and Budget Analysis Hank Kashdan.
It is a great privilege to be here today.
In my first year as Chief, I am encouraged by the level of interest
in management of the Nation's forests and rangelands shared by so many,
as well as this Subcommittee. I have deepened my appreciation for the
job being performed on the ground by our employees, as well as for the
many individuals and groups that actively engage in the agency's work.
Although I have worked on many wildland fires during my 36-year career,
I appear before you today with a renewed appreciation of what it means
to be on the ``hot seat.''
Overview
In my brief testimony today, I would like to discuss how the Fiscal
Year 2003 President's Budget will allow Forest Service programs to make
tangible contributions towards sustainable resource management and
discuss some of the significant issues on which we look forward to
working with the Subcommittee and the Congress over the next few
months.
The Fiscal Year 2003 President's Budget request for the Forest
Service for all appropriations totals almost $4.9 billion. Along with
the Administration's emphasis on efficiency and streamlining, the
budget underscores the Forest Service as a science-based organization
by placing emphasis on: (1) protecting the public, employees, property,
and resources; (2) providing benefits to communities; (3) improving
forest and rangeland health; and (4) meeting the growing recreation
demands for goods, services, and amenities by the public. To ensure
that the public gets the most value for its tax dollars, the Forest
Service will become more efficient and streamline to increase funding
at the field level; continue to improve agency accountability; and
address the issue of ``gridlock'' that is preventing the prompt
execution of projects on the ground. The Budget includes full funding
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and reflects increases
related to the National Energy Policy, and continues the Administration
``s commitment to the National Fire Plan.
Public and Employee Safety
Before focusing on any specific program areas, I want to emphasize
that the safety of agency employees and the public is one of the
highest priorities for the Forest Service. In particular, the agency
must take all action possible to prevent tragedies such as the
Thirtymile incident last summer where four firefighters died. The
Forest Service will ensure that proposed changes in management,
policies, training, and operations are made to improve safety for the
public and all employees, especially with respect to firefighter
safety. The agency must also work to reduce risks to life, property,
and ecosystems from high-intensity wildland fires within and adjacent
to communities.
Gridlock and Analysis Paralysis
Under Secretary Rey and I intend to focus a great deal of attention
on reestablishing a bias for accomplishing the work of the agency. What
is commonly referred to as ``gridlock'' or ``analysis paralysis'' is
directly affecting the ability of the agency to protect communities
from catastrophic wildfire, provide communities a sustainable flow of
forest products, and directly serve the public that uses and enjoys
national forest lands.
The National Academy of Public Administrators reported two years
ago that up to 40 percent of the work done on National Forests goes
into the planning and analysis process. In addition, indirect expenses
take an additional share of the budget (around 20%). Too little value
is returned to the public. To move beyond gridlock, our approach is to
rely on local knowledge and local participation as tools to achieve
national goals; we will focus on local solutions to national issues.
Local groups can help the agency find common ground to restore forest
and ecosystem health. Conversely, this commitment to local decision-
making cannot cloud our need to employ rigorous standards and
consistent processes that assure financial integrity is paramount. I
want to confirm that the renewed emphasis on local decision-making will
not impede the reforms necessary for assuring public trust to ensure in
the fiscal integrity or scientific reliability of the agency.
The President's Budget and USDA's efforts reflect a tangible first
step in reducing the gridlock associated with much of natural resource
management today. It includes continuation of stewardship contracting,
expedited consultations for endangered species, and the legislative
proposals I will touch on shortly. I renew my offer to work with you to
find a way to make Forest Service land management decisions in an
effective, efficient, and timely manner.
National Fire Plan -- Protecting Property and Resources
The agency will concentrate on the restoration of ecosystems to
fire adapted conditions and reducing the risk of wildfire to rural
communities. Rural residents and communities will be equipped with a
variety of tools to reduce the likelihood of loss from wildland fire.
The primary focus will be on reducing the number of communities at
extreme risk of loss from wildland fire and increasing the proportion
of forestland restored to conditions where fire regimes are within a
historical range. This effort will be accomplished in cooperation with
the Department of the Interior (DOI), state and local agencies, tribal
governments, academia, and other partners and concentrate on restoring
ecosystems to fire-tolerant conditions and protecting communities.
The Forest Service Preparedness Program, in cooperation with DOI's
program and those of state agencies and local volunteer fire
departments, will provide the resources and planning needed to protect
communities and ecosystems from wildland fire. The Hazardous Fuel
Program, in conjunction with DOI's program, will collaborate with State
and local communities, tribal governments, and other partners to focus
treatments in areas of greatest need of community protection and
ecosystem restoration. The Fiscal Year 2003 Budget requests $235
million for the Hazardous Fuels program, an increase in the program of
about $26 million. Seventy percent of these funds are targeted for the
wildland-urban interface. Funding for rehabilitation and restoration,
along with Burned Area Emergency, will protect communities and
watersheds from post-fire damage, and help burned areas recover from
fire damage. The Forest Service Research and Development Staff, along
with the DOI-Forest Service Joint Fire Science Program, are focusing
efforts on fuels reduction opportunities, including: (1) prioritizing
areas for treatment; (2) determining impacts of treatments on wildlife,
fish, and riparian areas; and (3) developing new uses for forest
undergrowth and small diameter trees. The Budget provides resources to
State and local communities to establish a truly comprehensive wildland
fire management policy across all ownership boundaries. It provides the
resources to increase the firefighting capability and planning of State
and local fire agencies, and to reduce hazardous fuel on non-Federal
land. Finally, the fireplain easements program will enable the Forest
Service to work with States to identify alternatives in areas where
potential fire suppression expenditures exceed the estimated value of
private property.
The USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are in
the second year of implementing the National Fire Plan. Significant
headway was made in Fiscal Year 2001 and continues in Fiscal Year 2002
to enhance tracking and reporting mechanisms to provide accountability
as accomplishments are made in firefighting, rehabilitation and
restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance and
research.
Together with the Department of the Interior, the President's
Budget requests over $2.1 billion for National Fire Plan programs to
protect communities from wildland fire and restore fire adapted
ecosystems.
Benefits to Communities
The Forest Service plays a key role in developing and maintaining
benefits to communities by providing natural resource-based
opportunities within desired sustainable levels for a variety of uses,
values, products, and services. The type of opportunities the agency
will engage in will be based on local needs and interests while
remaining consistent with the agency's mission and priorities. This can
include revitalizing and maintaining local economies through promoting
partnerships in recreation and tourism; increased and sustainable
availability of a variety of forest products and increased local
contracting opportunities in implementing forest management projects;
reducing risks to communities from severe wildland fires through
hazardous fuel reduction and fire prevention activities and education;
and providing a transportation system that facilitates local travel.
The Fiscal Year 2003 Budget provides an increase of $10 million
within the Forest Stewardship program to foster enhanced management and
use of small diameter and underutilized wood biomass on private lands.
Funds are also included for research on the use of small diameter trees
for biobased products and bioenergy.
Forest and Rangeland Health
Keeping watersheds in good condition and restoring them where
necessary are fundamental to the stewardship of the land and natural
resources. The agency will focus efforts and move ahead on watershed
restoration consistent with the agency's national goal to improve and
protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity
necessary to support ecological functions and beneficial water uses.
Invasive insects, diseases and plants threaten the integrity and
viability of forest and rangeland ecosystems and cause billions of
dollars of damage annually from losses due to tree mortality, impaired
rangeland conditions, and increased susceptibility to high-intensity
wildland fires. The Forest Service will work to protect the Nation's
rural and urban forests and grasslands from invasive insect, pathogen
and plant species in active partnership with Federal and State
agencies, Tribal governments, and municipal and nonprofit
organizations. The President's Budget requests over $83.6 million to do
so. The Budget also includes funding for cooperative work with States
and communities to enhance and protect the Nation's urban forest
resources as well as protect and conserve environmentally important
forests threatened by conversion to non-forest uses.
In each of these areas, research is the key to sustaining our
forest and rangeland productivity and health while addressing natural
resource needs.
The Budget also includes $15 million to transfer to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to help expedite Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation.
The $15 million is roughly enough to have one FWS or NMFS person per
forest available to respond to ongoing agency projects. This will
promote both available personnel to review project proposals under ESA
Section 7, as well as ensure increased familiarity and understanding on
the part of the FWS and NMFS staff as a consequence of their continuing
involvement with USDA projects.
Recreation
I was honored to represent the Forest Service recently at the
Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Two Olympic Winter Games signature
events'the downhill and super G'took place at the Snowbasin Ski Resort,
which is located on the Ogden Ranger District of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest. The USDA Forest Service's main goal for the 2002
Olympic Winter Games was to help ensure that Olympic-related activities
on the National Forests were safe and environmentally responsible. Due
to the dedication of many Forest Service employees, cooperators, and
visitors, I am pleased to inform the Subcommittee that this goal was
achieved.
Recreation is the fastest growing use on the national forests and
grasslands and how most Americans come into contact with the Forest
Service. The agency's recreation framework is being implemented through
five primary activities: (1) operating developed sites; (2) managing
general forest areas; (3) protecting cultural resources and wilderness;
(4) providing interpretation and education; and (5) administering
recreation special use authorizations. The agency will focus on a
measurable improvement in customer satisfaction and an increase in
documented contributions to community economies, primarily through
strategic business delivery partnerships. The Budget calls for $264
million for recreation in Fiscal Year 2003.
The Forest Service is operating the Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program to test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of new
recreation admission and user fees. Proposed legislation would make
permanent the current demonstration program and would authorize the
Forest Service to retain and use recreation fees collected under the
program.
Funds to the Ground--Accomplishing the Work of the Forest Service
President Bush has called for a government that focuses on
priorities and does them well. The President's Management Agenda
contains five government-wide and nine Forest Service-specific goals to
improve federal management and deliver results that matter to the
American people.
The Forest Service fully embraces the goals of the President's
Management Agenda. The agency is committed to increasing available
funds at the field level, shrinking non-discretionary cost centers at
all levels of the organization, and reinstituting a firm bias for
accomplishing the on-the-ground work of the Forest Service. To this
end, the agency: (1) has established targets for increased contracting
in key on-the-ground program areas; (2) is finalizing a workforce
restructuring plan that will reduce and realign headquarters and
regional personnel to increase resources at field locations; (3) has
completed an exhaustive review of the headquarters budget; and (4)
established Fiscal Year 2005 targets to reduce indirect expenses by
one-half its Fiscal Year 2002 level (to approximately 10% of total).
This will increase funds available for challenge cost-share from 2% to
5% of the operating program. In order to maximize fund availability at
the field level, the Forest Service has implemented firm funding
ceilings for the Washington Office, and intends to reduce overall
Washington Office funding to no more than 7.6 percent of the total
agency budget by the end of Fiscal Year 2003. Additionally, firm
principles for management of the agency budget have been established
that eliminate the ``national commitments'' method of holding funds off
the top for later reallocation.
Accountability
The Forest Service recognizes it cannot provide credible natural
resource management without effective financial and performance
management. The agency continues its emphasis on improving the quality
of its financial systems and performance reporting processes. A key
aspect of improved performance accountability involves providing field
units with the opportunity to influence the budgets they receive. The
Forest Service formulated input to the Fiscal Year 2003 President's
Budget using a new budget formulation process that provided local units
the opportunity to develop budget requests at the local level.
The Forest Service has operated a fully compliant financial system
for more than two years, and continues to implement actions that
improve financial accountability. The Department is working closely
with the Forest Service to promote agency efforts to provide high
quality accounting information. In addition, the Department of
Agriculture and the Forest Service continue to move forward in efforts
to obtain a ``clean audit opinion.'' Essential to this goal are
effective cash reconciliation and property management programs. The
Forest Service has improved the agency's accountability by directly
linking the accuracy of accounting records to reconciliation processes
and by committing an agency-wide team effort to ensure property records
are adequate to document the approximately $4 billion inventory of
assets. I have also ordered the formation of six ``strike teams'' that
will further develop or modify financial policies and procedures.
Legislative Proposals
Several legislative proposals of the Administration will include
making the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent; revising fee
schedules for ski resorts; increasing competitive bidding on timber
sales; and ``charter forests,'' which will take innovative approaches
to natural resources management. I look forward to working with the
Congress to develop these proposals on a bipartisan basis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the President's Fiscal Year 2003
Budget demonstrates the commitment of the Forest Service to
accountability through results. The Budget includes funding priorities
for the National Fire Plan and wildland fire management; research as
the basis of scientifically sound resource decision-making; forest
health; land acquisition; recreation; and minerals management,
especially projects related to the National Energy Policy. The
President's Management Agenda and Forest Service initiatives will
examine opportunities for restructuring the Forest Service by reducing
personnel at the national and regional level and redirecting them to
the forest level. In addition, financial initiatives will focus on
reducing indirect costs and streamlining accounting practices to reduce
expenditures. Competitive outsourcing of commercial activities will
continue to increase.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Peterson. In your testimony you spoke of the process
gridlock. When will the Forest Service report on National
Forest Planning and Decision Making be available?
Mr. Bosworth. We are currently completing the report. It is
in the final stages. Basically, what we are doing right now is
just getting internal reviews to make sure that we have all the
ideas in the report.
What we are really looking at right at this point is trying
to explain what the situation is and what the problem is. We
are not looking, in this particular report, to come up with a
whole lot of recommendations for solutions because I would like
to see first if we have a common agreement on what the problem
is because I fear running around looking for solutions to
problems that we don't agree are there.
So, the report that we are about ready to complete will
identify the problem in the best way that we can and then I
think that will set the stage for recommendations for
solutions.
Mr. Peterson. So you want to first have a debate about what
the problem is?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes. I am hoping it is not going to be too
debatable. Frankly, the problems seem to me to be pretty
obvious. But I'm sure that there won't be common agreement. But
I do think that it is worth looking at the problem and making
sure that there is some consistency in terms of what the
problem is that we are trying to solve and if we really have a
problem. I believe we have a problem and I want to make sure
that I communicate that well with Members of Congress and see
if we can't get some kind of common view of what the problem is
before we start talking about solutions to it.
Mr. Peterson. OK. The Departments of Interior and
Agriculture have been working on a proposal for some time to
create an Inter-agency National Fire Council which would be
charged with bringing direly needed coordination and uniformity
to the national fire plan. What is the status of this proposal
within the administration?
Mr. Bosworth. We have a charter that we have been working
with the Department of Interior on to establish an Inter-agency
Leadership Council that would have the heads of the agencies,
the five wildland firefighting agencies. They would be members
of that leadership council. That charter is currently in the
Department of Interior being reviewed for final agreement.
Mr. Peterson. When do you think?
Mr. Bosworth. My hope is soon. My hope is in the next few
weeks. I have not heard back from the Department of Interior to
see if they have any major concerns with it. I think it is just
a matter of time and we will have that charter approved by both
departments.
Mr. Peterson. Well, my experience with State government,
and the Federal is worse, is that time doesn't seem to matter
with a lot of agencies. You really have to put the stick to
them.
Mr. Bosworth. This is very important to us. It is very high
priority, so we will be doing whatever we can to make sure that
we have the agreement.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I will reiterate here the words of the
Chairman, not speaking for myself but for the Chairman, that if
it isn't forthcoming he is going to start the legislative
process to move in that direction. So, I think a word to the
wise is sufficient.
What are the impacts to your agency on OMB holding back
$280 million?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, there are $280 million that I requested
in a letter to the Secretary that the $280 million was
appropriated last year. It was appropriated as emergency
funding to be released. I think in my request I actually
requested $346 million to be released.
The Department forwarded on a request of $280 million.
About $200 million of that thereabouts was to pay back some of
the money that we spent last year during the fire season. The
other $80 million had to do with circumstances for this fiscal
year.
There are some consequences to not having the $280 million.
Probably one of the more important ones would be our ability to
be at a fire readiness that would be consistent or close to
consistent with last year. Of course, as time goes on, this is
the time of year when we let contracts for helicopters and for
tankers and where we hire firefighters and whatnot.
So, as time goes on it will be more difficult to meet the
readiness level that we need to meet.
Mr. Peterson. So, you are not cutting other programs. It is
going to affect readiness?
Mr. Bosworth. At that time is one of the things, but some
of the dollars would have paid back the money that we borrowed
last year basically to do the first suppression. Last year and
every year, just about every year, by the time we end up, if
there is any big fire season at all, we end up spending the
fire suppression dollars.
So, in the past we used to look at our trust funds like our
KV and our salvage sale funds to borrow from that. Those funds
no longer have much money in them, so now, last year, we had to
look other places to get the money, so we stopped contracts
that were large contracts about to be let. They hadn't been let
yet. So we would have the money and not become deficit and be
anti-deficient.
So, some of those dollars were to pay back those programs
that you in the Congress had given us the dollars to do. So, it
is important to us to be able to do the programs that you
allocate the dollars for. Some of those wouldn't get done.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. My 5 minutes having expired, I now
call on the ranking member for his questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, would you agree with my assessment that erosion
causing siltation from our road system that you and I are
responsible for is a major cause of potential extinction of
several salmon runs, for instance, in the State of Washington?
Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I don't know that I could characterize
it quite like that. I probably would need to talk to some of
our fisheries scientists to be real confident in the way that I
would answer that. But let me say that I do think that
siltation, sediment from roads is an important factor in terms
of survivability of fish.
There are a lot of factors that affect whether or not
salmon and steelhead are going to persist--dams, hatcheries,
and harvest. So habitat and siltation are each one of those
things, but I don't know that I would say it is even more so
than dams.
Mr. Inslee. Right. It depends on which watershed we are
talking about, obviously, too.
Mr. Bosworth. That is correct.
Mr. Inslee. Let me state my assessment. The more I get into
this subject, this becomes a bigger and bigger problem. That is
just one Congressman's assessment. I will tell you that looking
at it from the State of Washington.
I just wondered, what do you think should be our
prioritization of your dollars regarding roads in that regard?
For instance this year I think there is $240 million attributed
to new road building, maintenance and decommissioning. How is
that split up between new road building, maintenance and
decommissioning and how would you propose we think about that
issue?
Mr. Bosworth. The $241 million is the total. At this point
I can't tell you specifically how much is for construction,
reconstruction and maintenance. I can tell you, though, that
the amount of miles of new construction, planned new road
construction is very, very small. It is not non-existent, but
it is very close to non-existent.
Most of the dollars will be for reconstruction and
maintenance. But I can get the figures for you, break them down
and be more specific. Now, maintenance and reconstruction are
often very important for doing the things we are both talking
about in terms of reducing sediment from existing roads.
I would agree with you that it doesn't make sense to build
a whole lot of new roads if we can't take care of the roads
that we have. The most important thing that we can do right now
is taking care of the roads we have.
There may be some places and some situations that would be
an exception to that, but by and large we need to be focusing
on a lot of the existing roads, reconstruction and maintenance.
Mr. Inslee. Could you provide us with that information as
far as the number of miles involved? That would be helpful, I
think.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78152.001
Mr. Inslee. How would you characterize how far off we are
from meeting what should be our goal, for instance, of
maintenance and decommissioning? Now, the numbers I threw at
you in my opening statement which suggest we are off by factors
of ten of where we should be as far as pace of decommissioning,
where it looks to me like our entire national budget to do the
job would only do the job in one area of Hood Canal. Is that a
fair assessment of how far we are away from where we should be
on taking care of these roads?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I don't have a number across the
country of miles of roads that we would believe need to be
decommissioned. We probably don't even know that at this point
because that comes from watershed analysis, ecosystem analysis,
the watershed scale and other kinds of analyses that we will
do.
But I can say that there is a lot more miles out there that
we would want to decommission than what we have the dollars to
complete. We are limited. We have a $15 million cap that we are
limited to.
Mr. Inslee. I am sorry, that cap is what?
Mr. Bosworth. The cap is $15 million.
Mr. Inslee. For decommissioning?
Mr. Bosworth. For decommissioning?
Mr. Inslee. And that cap is set in what forum?
Mr. Bosworth. That was set in the Appropriations bill.
Mr. Inslee. In the last Appropriations bill?
Mr. Bosworth. That's correct.
Mr. Inslee. Does that make any sense, to have a cap like
that, when you have this, at least in my perception, this level
of damage that we are doing, where the Federal Government could
be considered one of, if not the, largest polluters in our
entire watersheds in the country.
Does it make any sense to have a cap like that on
decommissioning?
Mr. Bosworth. I guess I would say that a cap, probably, an
arbitrary cap probably doesn't make a lot of sense. But on the
other hand, I am not sure that we would have the wherewithal to
add more dollars to it. I mean if Congress decides that is
where you want to spend the dollars, that is your choice.
I guess my opinion is when you look at the overall programs
that we have to deal with--we talk about fire, about fuels
reduction and some of those things, you know--there are a lot
of different places you can put those dollars.
What I would like to do is, I would like for us in the
Forest Service to become more efficient with the dollars that
we have. I mentioned the analysis paralysis for process
gridlock a minute ago. When I am talking about trying to deal
with the process gridlock, I am talking about how we spend
dollars on the ground to do things like road decommissioning,
how we are doing things like thinning from below for fire-
adapted ecosystems around communities; how we are working in
replacing culverts so that fish can pass through those.
There are people who get the idea that process gridlock
only applies to something that they don't want to have happen.
But it also applies to a lot of the things that a lot of folks
do want to have happen, which is doing some watershed
restoration and putting these ecosystems into better condition.
When we spend 60 or 70 percent of the dollars pushing paper
and process stuff, it is dollars that are not getting to the
ground to decommission roads.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Before I call the next witness, I will just
share my thoughts on the condition of the roads. For a decade,
the first priority was to buy more land, not to maintain what
we have. I think the lack of a maintenance budget will plague
your department and all departments until we put in the
adequate amount; because if we don't maintain a road you are
going to have siltation and some maintenance of our existing
system.
Although I am sure there are roads, and I support some
roads being done away with, but, you know, an unsurfaced road,
nature will decommission it naturally. Trees will grow in it
and pretty soon there is a root base there and it will
decommission itself. So, in my view, I think we have to
concentrate more on maintaining what we because you know most
of our people, especially our middle-aged and up, can't enjoy
the forest if there is not some kind of a road to get there.
That is my view. So, Mr. Otter, you are on.
Mr. Bosworth. May I respond to that first, please?
Mr. Peterson. Sure.
Mr. Bosworth. While I agree that many of these roads that
aren't used end up with trees growing in them, we lost some
experience in a lot of parts of the country, and I am familiar
with Northern Idaho and Montana, most recently where we had
roads that did have trees that grew up through them. They were
not being used by anybody, but they were still part of the
system. Some of those roads are blowing out because we had
never pulled out the drainage.
So that is part of the cost in decommissioning. Even though
the roads may not be used now, the roads that most people would
agree they don't plan on using and they don't want to use, but
they have a potential for delivery of sediment in some of the
streams.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Chief Bosworth, we heard some statements made
that the Forest Service was probably the largest polluter of
our salmon habitat and salmon spawning beds. You didn't agree
or disagree with that. I would like to know where you stand on
that?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I don't agree that we are the largest
polluter of the waters.
Mr. Otter. Who is?
Mr. Bosworth. There are a lot of different lands that make
up the watershed. There are private lands. There are State
lands and there are National Forest lands. My belief is, and I
can't sit here--maybe we have some studies I can talk to my
research folks about. My belief is that some of the cleanest
water in the United States comes off National Forest System
lands.
I have seen that in all the parts of the country where I
have worked. It will get downstream and when you get downstream
you get into more of the urban areas and some of the areas
where there is agriculture taking place, where there are more
roads than what there is even on the National Forests.
So, while we do deliver some sediment to the streams and
whenever you do have roads, that is going to be one source of
sediment, I don't believe that the waters coming off the
National Forest are the greatest polluter. I think they are
probably the cleanest waters we have in the country.
Mr. Otter. Let me give you a judgment call here. We burned
880,000 acres of watershed in Idaho during the 2000 fire
season. Do you suppose that is degrading the watershed or any
of the streams to the extent in excess of the roads that are
there?
Mr. Bosworth. There is a huge amount of sediment. We have
the figures on the forests like the Salmon-Challis Forest and
the Bitterroot Forest where our watershed restoration folks
went in and looked at after the fires. There are huge amounts
of sediment that were being delivered those first few years
after the fires, the first 2 years. There will continue to be,
for another two or 3 years, large quantities of sediment.
There was also, in 2001, a rainstorm that came through
parts of the Salmon-Challis and through the Bitterroot. It put
down less than an inch of rain, but every drainage that it went
over it blew out the streams and they ended up with mud down at
the bottom of the hill and around some of the homes where
people had survived the fires the year before and they ended up
with mud in their places.
Mr. Otter. What is the assessment process that you go
through to identify a road for potential decommissioning?
Mr. Bosworth. Usually we do what we refer to as a watershed
assessment or an ecosystem assessment at the watershed scale.
We also have what we call a road analysis process that looks at
either a watershed or the forest as a whole and looks at what
roads we need, what roads we don't. We work with the public. I
mean it is not something that we just do all by ourselves. We
find out whether or not the roads that we have in place are
still the ones that we want to have in the future and are they
in the condition that we want to have then and whether or not
there needs to be some reconstruction or decommissioning on
some of those roads.
Mr. Otter. In that scoping process, Chief, do you include
handicapped access?
Mr. Bosworth. That is a factor that is involved in the
decisions. We want to make sure that all persons have access to
National Forests.
Mr. Otter. So, senior citizens, too, then.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes. But that doesn't mean that every partner
has access to every acre of the National Forests. We want to
make sure that we are providing a wide array of opportunities
for people to get to the National Forests, whether they are
wheelchair bound, whether they are old. But again, we wouldn't
want to say that every acre would be accessible by every
individual. There are differences.
For example, wildernesses have some different levels of
ability required to access wildernesses. But we do, when we are
doing our analysis, our road analysis process, we do look at
the different kinds of needs that people have to get to the
National Forests.
Mr. Otter. Let me give you another judgment call. If I
happen to be a healthy 60-year old robust fellow who rides
horses an awful lot, and I can ride a long way, do I have the
same access? I mean, would a person who was, let's say,
handicapped in some way that cannot ride a horse, would they be
able to enjoy that same area of the forest as myself.
Mr. Bosworth. There are places on the National Forest
System both in wilderness as well as some places outside of
wilderness where your ability to hike or ride horses would
allow you to get there.
Mr. Otter. So we would be denying, then, these other
people?
Mr. Bosworth. There are some places in the National Forests
where folks would not be able to get there.
Mr. Otter. So, they would not be able the see the salmon
spawning beds in their natural habitat.
Mr. Bosworth. There would be some salmon spawning beds
where they would be able to access out and be able to see it.
Mr. Otter. So, we would have two classes of citizens.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, again, every acre, you go back to
wilderness. Wilderness is areas where not everybody is going to
be able to hike up into all the wilderness areas. Yet, there
are many places on the National Forest System that have
stunning vistas and beautiful landscapes that lots and lots of
people can get to by passenger car. Some will take four-wheel
drive. Some take a horse or an ATV and some that require
hiking. So, we try to have a wide array of recreational
opportunities for the visitors to the national forests where
people have opportunities to see a wide array of things.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Bosworth, it is good to have you here today. Let me
start with--in your written testimony you talk about
legislative proposals and you talk about Charter Forests which
is a possible legislative proposal which would take innovative
approaches to natural resources management. There isn't much in
your budget proposal nor in your statement about Charter
Forests.
I am wondering if you could flesh that out a little bit and
give me an idea where you are headed and how we would get to a
legislative point. Are you going to serve us up with a draft
proposal of what you are looking at? Are you interested in
looking at what we produced? Go ahead.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, first, Charter Forests is sort of a
concept that would allow for experimenting in different ways to
see whether or not we can become more effective in managing
National Forests. So, it would be like having an experimental
forest where we could try to see if there are some ways that we
can streamline some of the processes, whether or not we could
work better with a collaborative group to achieve on the ground
activities.
There are a number of examples out there that you could
sort of think about, the Valles Caldera Trust, the Baca Ranch
in New Mexico. It is managed by a trust, but it is National
Forest System land and it could be an example of some approach
that we might want to look at. The Presidio Trust is another
one in San Francisco that is a concept that may feed into
something like this.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Where did the term ``Charter
Forests'' come from because I am from, because I am familiar
with both of those proposals and in concept I am very
supportive of the idea that you are talking about, of working
in a collaborative way to resolve local problems. But where did
the term ``Charter Forest'' come from and what is it?
Mr. Bosworth. I believe that the term ``Charter Forest''
came from the Charter Schools approach that the administration
has proposed to look at different individual schools and see
whether or not there are different ways of--it is sort of the
same concept, only with forests.
We are really looking for ideas. We are looking for ideas
that would fit in with the concept and then we would see if we
could put together some legislation and work with you folks to
see whether or not there is something that we can make out of
this that would help us to become more effective.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Do you think you might come up
with a draft for legislation some time soon on this?
Mr. Bosworth. It would be our intention to have some
legislation that we would propose in the near future, but I
can't give you a timeframe on how quickly that would be because
I really need to find out where the ideas are coming from, how
many ideas are out there. We are getting a lot of comments from
folks right now that are saying, ``I would like to be a Charter
Forest.''
We are saying, ``Well, what are the ideas that would be
associated with that that we might build from?''
So, we will be putting together some proposed legislation.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. In looking at the Valles Caldera
Preserve, which is one of the ones that you mentioned, I think
that is a good example of the Forest Service land being used in
a way with a trustee board to work through a lot of the
resource issues we have such a difficult time with in the west,
whether it is grazing or hunting or recreational use or
fishing.
This trustee group which is citizens and Presidential
appointees and others are trying to come to grips with all of
those issues on the use and trying to balance a good ecological
system and a healthy ecological system with all of the demands
that are out there for this 95,000 acre ranch.
I would be very interested in seeing what your proposals
are and work with you also on what has happened in New Mexico
because I think they are making some progress at the local
level on many of these important issues. I am not so sure if it
was managed the other way around, that you had to manage it out
of Washington, not because you don't have good managers; it is
just because I think you have so many acres of land, you know,
hundreds of millions of acres of land, that it is hard to get
down to the details and the specifics and understand the
community.
Mr. Bosworth. I am interested in looking at any ideas that
will help bring people together and help people to try to find
solutions to some of these problems and particularly local
solutions to some of these national issues. Charter Forests may
be one way of doing that. There is a possibility of hearings
being held. I would hope that there will be hearings held
before there is proposed legislation.
I think it would really be worthwhile to have multiple
panels with multiple interests and ideas in hearings and try to
bring some of these ideas out and see where they would go. So,
I would be really happy to participate in any hearings.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. So you would support some kind of
hearing to flesh this out a little bit and try to get people to
come up and give you ideas? I think that is good. My time has
run out. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Chief, it is good to see you again. I am glad
to see my colleague from Idaho brought up the issue of fires in
Idaho and the siltation that occurred from there. We probably
destroyed more salmon habitat 2 years ago in Idaho than we have
since the 1910 fires. I can tell you, having spent a couple of
days up there on those fires, I am glad there was a couple of
roads up there to get into them. Otherwise, it would have been
even more catastrophic than it was. That is just a comment.
Relative to Charter Forests, I wanted to ask you about
those. Have you seen a bill that we have introduced, H.R. 2119,
Heritage Forests? Have you had an opportunity to see that?
Mr. Bosworth. I guess I haven't.
Mr. Simpson. As you are looking for ideas, take a look at
that. What it does, the intent behind that is to be able to go
into some of these forests that we have where the native
species are being driven out by other species and restore them
to their natural heritage states. That is an interesting piece
of legislation. We had it last year. I encourage you to take a
look at that. I would like to work with you on Charter Forests,
Heritage Forests, whatever you want to call them.
Also, there are many proposals out there. One of them is
the Idaho Federal Lands Task Force which has made five
recommendations of collaborative effort of management,
different styles of management, each one of some Federal lands
and some of them forestlands.
Take a look at those ideas because I really do think that
the future management of the forests is going to be much more
locally involved and local input in both the problems and
solutions that drive our policies.
You mentioned that in the hazardous fuels reduction the
President's budget calls for 70 percent of the fuels hazard
reduction appropriation to be directed toward work in the
wilderness-urban interface.
Mr. Bosworth. In the wildland-urban interface.
Mr. Simpson. Excuse me. That is what I meant. Are there
examples of areas where fire has burned rapidly from a
wilderness area into an area of mixed Federal and other
ownership including improved property? Are there legitimate
forest management reasons for treating areas outside of this
wildland-urban interface?
Mr. Bosworth. There are situations where fires have burned
from a number of miles away to a community. There are lots of
different good reasons why you would do fuels reduction in
areas that may be further away from the wildland-urban
interface.
On the other hand, it makes sense, I believe, to start
close to the communities and work your way out over time. I
want to give you an example. If you end up being several miles
away from a community and you are going to reintroduce fire
into an area because you have done some thinning from below and
now you want to get fire back in, if you have a huge amount of
fuels between that area that you are treating and the town, you
really increase the potential to have a prescribed burn get
away and threaten the community.
So, it makes sense from my standpoint to start closer to
the community and work your way out rather than being a long
ways away from the community and doing the treatments there
first.
Mr. Simpson. Will the Forest Service have projects far
enough along through the planning and NEPA processes that such
a target of 70 percent can be met by 2003?
Mr. Bosworth. I believe we will by 2003. Last year I
believe that in testimony I had mentioned that the projects
that we would be doing in 2001 would not in a lot of cases be
around the wildland-urban interface simply because the projects
that we had on the shelf and ready to go were further away from
the communities.
But we started then in getting a focus on the projects that
were in the communities at risk. We have been doing the
preparatory work for those, environmental assessments,
environmental impact statements, working with the communities.
So we will be accomplishing significant acres in the non-
wildland-urban interface, but we will be getting the stuff
around those communities as well.
I also want to say that so many percent refers to dollars,
not acres. It is much, much more expensive to treat those lands
near the communities than it is the lands that are further
away. So, remember that.
Mr. Simpson. In previous testimony, I believe it was in
testimony, we talked about the problems and the length of time
it takes to complete a NEPA process. I think you mentioned to
me, I think the numbers one time were that the Forest Service
spends about 20 percent of the time or dollars making a
decision that it believes is a sound decision. Then about 80
percent of its time or dollars making it bulletproof from
lawsuits.
You were concerned about that, as I am. Have we found a
way, are you working on a way to try to smooth out this NEPA
process that we have going?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I talked about 20 percent, 80 percent,
30 percent, 70 percent a couple of times. I have gotten those
figures in talking with forest surveyors and district rangers
who are doing the work and asking them how much information
they had, how much time they had spent before they had enough
information to make a good, sound decision, science-based that
involved the public.
Most of them told me that it was about 20 or 30 percent. We
are doing work right now. The report I mentioned earlier that
we were about to complete describes the problem we are looking
at. There are options we might have to decrease the amount of
analysis and the amount of paperwork that it takes to get the
job done.
I would like to ask Sally to add to that a little bit.
Ms. Collins. I just wanted to say, too, that the whole area
around NEPA we are taking real seriously and looking at it from
just a whole bunch of different dimensions. There are some
specific changes we are looking at internally that we have some
management control over. But there are a whole lot of things
that we are right now working on with the Council on
Environmental Quantity that are some potential regulatory
changes or policy changes that we think we can work on with
them.
We currently have an employee from the Forest Service at
the Council on Environmental Quantity, working with us to look
at some of those. In addition to that, we have some new
categorical exclusions we are proposing. We are working those
through the process right now so that by the summer we should
have some new categorical exclusions that will also speed up
any of the process.
But we have just a whole array of those kinds of things
that we are working on. Interestingly enough, we had an
internal survey done by Forest Service employees on what were
the most aggravating issues for them internally. The whole
process issue is probably the most demoralizing piece for
employees. There is a lot of internal energy and anxiousness to
get this solved.
One of the examples someone told me on a recent field trip
was just what took 2 years ago, just 2 years ago or 3 years ago
they could analyze in four or five pages for a biological
evaluation is now 60 pages, just because of needing to justify
those kind of decisions.
What we are thinking through are some policy changes and
potentially some regulatory changes that are not going to
change the intent of the environmental laws, in fact it may
even help us realize the intent of the environmental laws, if
we can actually see some of those kind of changes, it would
actually help our employees get some work done on the ground.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. I'm going to let the Ranking
Member start the second round of questions. Now that puts me at
a slight advantage because once in a while we disagree and I
get the chance to correct the record after he has done so.
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. We appreciate your correcting my mistakes
always. It is a full time job, believe me.
Chief, the Pacific Northwest Assistance Program has really
been helpful to some local communities. The administration has
not funded it this year. Why would the administration conclude
that there are other sources that are as good or better than
this for the needs of these local communities that have had
real dislocation?
Mr. Bosworth. Well there are a number of things that we do
across the country in our programs that I believe would help
with community vitality and community economics. Some examples
would be what we call the Wyden Amendment that allows us to
spend National Forest System dollars on private lands if they
are adjacent or near National Forest lands.
The fuels treatment work that is going on in a lot of
places can be used on both private as well as National Forest
lands if they are adjacent to the private lands.
There is Payments to States legislation that was passed by
Congress and signed into law that provides 25 percent for Title
II of the Act that would contribute in some cases to community
vitality. There are a number of programs that actually help
with community assistance.
Then, I think some of the opportunities that we have to
work closely with communities where we are trying to do more
outsourcing of contracting, more outsourcing of work through
contracting, where we can contract with local communities to do
work on National Forests that I think helps those communities.
Recreation and tourism and particularly getting information
to the public on the opportunities for recreation and tourism
on the National Forests are another place where you can help
with community economy.
The Forest Stewardship Program with its technical
assistance support would increase by $16.1 million under the
President's budget and that would provide $10 million for small
diameter and under-utilized wood biomass that could help
communities.
So there are a number of other things that I think would
also help communities in addition to that program.
Mr. Inslee. I want to ask you about the Roadless Rule.
First off, you can just tell us what timing we could expect or
what you are thinking as far as timing on a specific action by
the administration. Can you tell us, has there been any change?
There was, at least in our characterization, an overwhelming
sentiment for a strong roadless policy in the first go-around
of hearings and comment. Has there been any diminution of that
sort of ratio of strong versus not quite as strong comments
from the public?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I don't really have any real good way
right at this point to measure whether that has changed one way
or the other. My guess would be that if you talked to those
same people who commented before, those same people would
probably have pretty much the same sentiments that they had
when they commented a year and a half ago.
There are a couple of aspects with the roadless issue that
are in play. One has to do with the fact that we went out with
an advance notice of rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, that
asked, I think it was ten questions. We asked people to sort of
answer those ten questions and give us their viewpoints so that
we could look for other ideas and things on how we might move
forward with this.
We are currently evaluating that, going through the content
analysis from those comments that we got when we went out with
ANPR. The other thing is that with all the court cases and
lawsuits on the roadless policy and being before the Ninth
Circuit, there is still some uncertainty in terms of what the
Ninth Circuit may end up doing with Judge Lodge's decision and
that will have something to do with how we would move forward
as well.
Mr. Inslee. Do you intend to wait for at least the Court of
Appeals decision on that before you issue a formal roadless
area policy? Is that the understanding or do you know yet?
Mr. Bosworth. I can't answer that for certain. My guess is
that it would make sense to see what the Ninth Circuit is going
to do before we come out with some final proposal. There are
also a number of other cases, I think nine other lawsuits in
six other judicial districts and four other Federal circuits
regarding the roadless conservation rule. So, it is a fairly
complicated process that we need to work our way through and
look to see if we can't find some kind of consensus around
that.
Did you have something to add, Sally?
Ms. Collins. I would just say that we also are looking at--
we were approached by a pretty diverse collection of outside
interests interested in helping us work through some kind of a
mediated look at what we do with roadless. We call it the Roads
Working Group. They are in the process of meeting and coming up
with some ideas about how we might work our way through that.
So, that is going on as we have the public comments on, as we
have the court.
Mr. Inslee. How many tracks are proceeding that you have
individually reviewed? You announced that you were going to
individually review requests, including those in some revised
forest plans and those not. Can you give us some assessment of
how many are proceeding in the Tongass or otherwise?
Mr. Bosworth. I sent a letter out, it must have been in
last June and then we put it into an interim directive that
held to me the decision on whether or not to enter roadless
areas with roads. But there were exceptions to that. The
exceptions would be those same exceptions that were in the
roadless area conservation rule and also if a forest plan was
completed, a recently completed forest plan, then the Forest
Supervisor or Regional Forester could made the decision in
those particular cases.
I have had no requests from any Regional Forester to make a
decision regarding entry into a roadless area.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Bosworth. You are welcome.
Mr. Peterson. The reforestation budget has been cut by $355
million with borrowings in recent years. Last year $51 million
was construction and maintenance; $24 million timber purchaser;
Elect Road Construction Fund $15 million; Timber Salvage Fund
$51 million; Working Capital Fund $20 million; Reforestation
Fund $39 million; Hazardous Fuels Projects $10 million; Backlog
Fire Facility Repair, $59 million, again for restoration and
rehabilitation from fires; $5 million for research and
development; and $6 million for State fire assistance.
It appears that you are constantly having to borrow--or
some would say ``steal''--from other funds because of fires.
Have we adequately funded the fire program? I mean when you
have that kind of money taken out of reforestation and other
projects you hamper those programs. To me that is the on-the-
ground money the bureaucracy turns on. But the on-the-ground
money gets taken for fires.
Should we be funding you for fires more adequately?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we need a long-term solution to the
problem that we have. If we have an average cost of about $474
million, which is an average 10-year cost for fire suppression.
If we have fewer dollars than that, then in the end, during
most fire seasons we are either going to have to borrow money
from other funds, or we are going to have to pull firefighters
off the fire line. I don't think there is going to be a lot of
support to pull the firefighters off the fire line,
particularly around these communities.
So, this does cry out for a long-term solution where we at
least have some kind of line of credit or some other thought-
out place to get the dollars if we are going to need them for
fire suppression. I realize there is criticism about our fire
suppression costs, the cost for large fire suppression. We are
doing a lot of things right now to try to figure out how we
might be able to cut some of our fire suppression costs.
But I will say that in the end my belief is that where we
can cut costs we will, but in the end I think it is going to be
marginal costs around the edge. It is not going to be
significant reductions in the costs of large fire suppression.
So, we do need to come up with a long-term solution on what we
are going to do in those years that we fall short, years like
the year 2000 where we fell significantly short of the dollars
that we had.
Mr. Peterson. Well, as I was saying, last year was not as
bad a year. But these borrowings I listed were last year's
borrowings. So, that is right. If it had been a bad year those
funds could have been depleted.
Mr. Bosworth. That is exactly right.
Mr. Peterson. Let us give you a message. We can speak and
you can quote us. When you go back and talk to OMB, tell them
that there are a lot of folks in Congress, on this committee,
who think they ought to release those funds and that you
shouldn't have to be borrowing from other accounts. Is that
message clear?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, very clear.
Mr. Peterson. What are the agency's plans to provide
leadership and inter-agency coordination for the Fire Plan?
What are you doing to show leadership to the rest?
Mr. Bosworth. In terms of inter-agency?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, there is a number of things that we are
working on right now with the other agencies for the National
Fire Plan, things like identifying performance elements. They
are the same kind of performance criteria, performance elements
for both the Department of Interior and the Department of
Agriculture Forest Service.
We are working together to make sure that how we describe
our performance is going to be the same for both and that they
are results oriented. We are working on a complimentary budget
request approach so that we are not inconsistent with the
Department of Interior in the way they approach that.
Our inter-agency cohesive strategy is an inter-agency
cohesive. That is something that the agencies within Interior
as well as the Forest Service and USDA are working on together
and we are about to have that completed. We should have an
implementation plan completed within the next few weeks. That
implementation plan will be an inter-agency implementation
plan.
I think the most important thing, though, is the
interagency group, the leadership council, that would be the
heads of the agencies who would be working together to provide
that leadership within all five agencies. That is the thing, I
think, in the end that will make a big difference.
Mr. Peterson. Are we working toward a czar?
Mr. Bosworth. Fire security czar? Tom Ridge is finding it
very difficult to get Federal agencies to work together for
homeland security. These are huge beasts. I mean I say that as
a long time governmental person with a business background.
These agencies are tough to deal with one-on-one. But when you
try to get three of them to go on the same track, it is not
easy, no matter what area you are in, human services or forest
services. It is not an easy deal.
Mr. Peterson. Well, my view is that when we get the charter
completed and signed off for the agency leadership council with
the five agency heads working together, I do believe that we
won't need to have a fire czar; that the five agencies will
work together and accomplish what is expected.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I hope your optimism bears fruit.
Mr. Peterson. I don't know if you are familiar with what we
call the NWCG. That is the National Wildfire Coordinating
Group. That is an organization or group that is made up of the
wild land firefighting agencies as well as the States that has
been in place for a number of years. That is a group that
together establishes the training requirements, establishes the
red card system that works through the Instant Command Teams
that we have that work on fires or inter-agency.
We may have our Forest Service people reporting to a Park
Service person or even a State or county person who is the
incident commander. But they are all part of the same team on
suppressing fires. I think the model with that National
Wildfire Coordinating Group, that model is the same sort of
model that we are talking about with our agency leadership
council that has been very successful, very successful.
Mr. Peterson. I will say this and then I have to move on to
the next questioner here. But I hope all of these value the
safety of a human life over a species. That is my personal
belief. We shouldn't be worried about some of the things we did
the last time, whether we move or we don't move, an endangered
plant is not as valuable as a human life.
Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Dale, would you take me through a decommissioning the
operation process, the actual physical process of
decommissioning a road?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, there are different approaches, but let
me give you one approach. What we would do is, first, through
an analysis process such as a watershed analysis or a road
analysis, when we determine that a road should be
decommissioned, it may be a road that hasn't been used for 20
years or it may be a road that has been and for one reason or
another we decide that it needs to be decommissioned.
One way would be to put a physical barrier at the end of
that road so that people are not going to continue to drive on
it. We put a sign up and you go through the public announcement
process so people are aware of it. Generally, if it is going to
be decommissioned we should be pulling the drainage out of it
and putting it back to its normal state, so the water will flow
in its normal channel, in its regular channel.
We may put some native grass seeds back in it to get it
growing. That is one way and just leaving the road prism in
place.
Another way may be that we would pull some of the road
prism out. In other words, pull the fill slope back up into the
road bed and plant that and also pull the drainage out. So, it
depends upon what the long-term purpose is and what your
objectives are, but there could be several ways of
decommissioning. Again, from simply just putting up a barrier
to stop people from using it clear to putting it back to its
original contour.
Do you want to add to that?
Ms. Collins. Yes. Another thing I was going to add is that
every road has a friend. Every road in the National Forest has
a constituency. I look back on my time as a manager of a
National Forest and I think some of the most sensitive issues
we dealt with were roads issues, whether you are proposing a
seasonal closure or a gate or a decommissioning.
So, the public development in that, when the notification
and letting people have an opportunity to comment on that was
always a huge part of that process because, like I say, people
really care about many of those areas.
Now, there are some places where it is easier than others.
But generally, whether it is a family that has camped in an
area for a long time or a hunting group or it is an important
access for firefighting or whatever it might be, there is
always a constituency for an area.
So, it is important for us to be working with people as
part of that process.
Mr. Otter. I see. The reason I asked that question is that
I happened on to a road that, I guess, decommissioned. It was
at the Sawtooth. The devastation that resulted from the
decommissioning three or 4 years ago, because of the prism, as
you called it, had been removed and the watershed, there was a
mechanical effort made to get it back to its natural state. The
resulting washout and concentration of flows gouged a terribly
deep hole into the surface. Then it subbed and probably a 25-
acre section of the mountain slipped off because it subbed down
below, went between the rock bed and the soil.
I was told that was a result of them trying to remove a
road. It would seem to me, it looked to me like there was a
whole lot more damage done by removing the road than if you had
just put up the gate or put up the block or gouged one of those
Kelly humps or whatever you call it in the road to stop
traffic.
But it was awful and the damage that was done is going to
be there for a long, long time. I don't know when that will
ever come back. Obviously, not in my lifetime.
I am sure you are sensitive to those things, not to do more
damage than just to leave it there. In this case, then it was
ripped. The other thing that was interesting was that the old
road surface was ripped in the plane parallel to slope. Of
course, the water then just got into one of those deep rip
ditch and it just continued to widen and wash more and more and
more. They think that is what eventually caused the slip-off. I
would like to have the opportunity to show you that.
The other thing I guess I would like to see, I would like
to see a successful decommissioned area. I don't mean a
picture. I mean I would like to know where there is a
successful decommission that is maybe 5 years old that we can
go out and look at because all I have seen thus far is
unsuccessful ones where you actually tried to take them out.
Mr. Bosworth. I would look forward to taking you to
northern Idaho and visiting some places up in the Clearwater
National Forest that I believe you would like to see. It was
fairly uncontentious, if that is the right word. There wasn't
too much controversy associated with it. Most people believed
that it was something that needed to be done. In fact, I would
like to see it after three or 4 years, too, to see whether or
not it looks like it should look and like we hope it looks.
Maybe we can learn something from that.
Mr. Otter. Just one additional question then: How are we
going to get in to see it?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we will walk a little bit or you can
bring your horses.
Mr. Otter. Good point.
Mr. Peterson. The gentlemen from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Bosworth, I represent a district with a number of
Native American tribes in it. The fire season we had in 2000
was pretty devastating to some of them in terms of their
forests. I am wondering what work the Forest Service has done
to work with tribes and assist them in the implementation of
the National Fire Plan?
Mr. Bosworth. There are a number of things. Of course, it
depends on individual tribes. The work that is being done on
one forest to another forest may vary some, but one of the
focus areas is to make sure that we are working with the tribes
as well as working with the States and the counties and the
local people in determining where we want to do fuels
treatment. We use a lot of tribal members in fire suppression,
in our fire suppression activities.
We work very closely with the tribes in terms of the fuels
aspects. I don't know that I can talk to the restoration or
rehabilitation aspects, but I can find out and get back to you
on that part of it.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you. In the GAO report on
severe wildland fires it mentioned percentages in terms of
where you are applying money in terms of wildland-urban
interface. Apparently, there is a large number of acres, the
number that I have is 785,000 acres of non-wild and urban
interface lands which have been targeted for treatment. Could
you tell me what your thinking is on that, why such a large
amount and what the reasons are?
Mr. Bosworth. The work that we did in 2001 with the
National Fire Plan in terms of fuels treatment was not as
focused on the wildland-urban interface as we would like to
have it. The reason for that was because the projects we had on
the shelf ready to go were projects that were not necessarily
focused on the wildland-urban interface.
It takes a couple of years usually to work your way through
the environmental analysis, the consultation and the
collaborative work you need to do with the communities to
decide where you are going to do the work around the community,
where the highest priority work is, what kind of work and then
do the documentation.
So, just because of the short timeframe when we got the
first National Fire Plan, the dollars, that first year's worth
of work wasn't able to be focused as much around those areas as
we would like. But that is where we are heading now and more
and more the projects are going to be focused on those areas
now.
I am just looking at some figures here. In 2001 we had some
611,000 acres, approximately, and in 2002 about 544,000. In
2003 the plan is to have about 965,000 in the wildland-urban
interface. So, that is a fairly significant jump. That is
mainly because it is a two or 3-year lag before you can start
projects from the very beginning until you work your way
through that process.
That takes me back to some of the process gridlock that I
worry about. The GAO, in its January 2002 report, Severe Wild
Land Fires, supported a recommendation made by the National
Academy of Public Administrators that an inter-agency national
council should be created to provide leadership and ensure that
funds appropriated to implement the National Fire Plan are
spent efficiently.
What are your thoughts on their recommendation?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture directed the Deputy Secretaries to decide how they
wanted to approach this from a leadership standpoint. Their
direction was for us to establish an inter-agency leadership
council at the agency level. In other words, the agency heads
would be the inter-agency leadership council.
That is a charter that we have developed. It is now over at
the Department of Interior and hopefully will be approved and
signed by the Department of Interior in the near future. To
establish this inter-agency leadership council I think would
meet the expectations that I think the GAO report was citing.
[The GAO report on Severe Wildland Fires has been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. The President's budget calls for allowing
non-commercial interests to bid on timber sales. Can you
explain how this proposal helps you achieve your land
management objectives?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the notion on that proposal would be to
increase the competitiveness and therefore the value of timber
sales. About 60 percent of the timber sales that we offer are
timber sales for other purposes. It may be for habitat
improvement. It may be for fuels reduction for watershed
restoration. In those cases, that wouldn't apply. The other 40
percent of the timber sales that we offer that are specifically
for the purposes of providing timber, selling timber. This
would be a proposal that could allow other interests to bid on
those and therefore not have the effect on the land management
objectives that I believe you are talking about.
The 60 percent of the timber sales that we offer--
Mr. Peterson. They are to be low-cost sales by design.
Mr. Bosworth. They do other things other than just provide
wood supplies?
Mr. Peterson. Why aren't those in separate budgets? You
know, they criticize timber sales just because they don't make
money when the biggest share of them are not about making
money. Those should be under a different title. They shouldn't
be allowed to do that to you. I am serious.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, it causes a lot of confusion in the
public. We have a tool.
Mr. Peterson. It is self-induced by putting it together.
Mr. Bosworth. We have several tools for accomplishing work
on the land. Those tools may be a service contract. It may be a
Forest Service crew. It may be a stewardship contractor. It may
be a timber sale. If our objective is reducing the fuels, for
example, any one of those tools may be the right tool,
depending on the particular circumstances and the particular
situation.
Then there are other projects, timber sales, that we may
sell strictly for the purpose of getting a return to the
government and getting wood fiber on the market. That is a
different purpose. The two things get pretty confused with the
public in terms of our timber sale program.
Mr. Peterson. I guess I would find it problematic with the
small amount of timber that is being sold by this huge agency
and now to allow anti-forestry practice people, you know,
managing forests, you may do a commercial sale that is
profitable, but there is going to be a lot of winners with
well-managed forests.
If we don't manage them, they are all going to eventually
die. We get into the issue of carbon sequestration. You know, a
young managed forest is a great carbon sink. It sucks carbon
out of the air to make the trees, you know, like well-managed
farmland. When you have aggressive plant growth, you are taking
the carbon out of the air. There is a lot of concern about
carbon dioxide today.
If we stop managing, and it seems to me this proposal stops
managing, we are going to let all our forests grow old and die.
Now, there are lots of people who believe in that. I think it
is the most stupid thing I have ever heard of because watching
an old forest die, there may be some beautiful parts of it, but
as a whole if we let all the forests in this country age and
die, they become carbon dioxide emitters and they also become
ugly places with limited wildlife and habitat because old,
dying forests are not where you see wildlife activity like you
do.
So, I guess I question that 40 percent is now going to be
challenged by people who would in turn pay for.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, it is an area where we would be very
interested in working with you folks and seeing if there are
some areas that we could explore along those lines and see
whether or not there are some things that would be particularly
useful.
You were talking about the carbon sequestration. I would
just like to add that we have some very good research that has
taken place in terms of carbon sequestration on national
forests that is important research that is going on there. I
think it will be informative as it goes along.
Mr. Peterson. Well, let's assume the 40 percent all gets
purchased by people who don't want to cut down the trees, who
don't want forestry practiced. Doesn't that prevent you from
legally complying with the law of your management plan?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, if we allow this proposal, it would
require action by Congress and we would have to work together
with Congress to figure out how legislation should be put
together. My assumption would be that if Congress passes
legislation along those lines that it would be legal.
Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. The budget request, Chief, lists
two items that will be addressed in legislation regarding
timber sales. One of them says the legislation will be
forwarded to Congress to require sealed bids on timber sales.
Is legislation necessary to require the Forest Service to only
offer sealed bids on timber sales?
Mr. Bosworth. Right now, we have both sealed bid and oral
auction timber sales.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. But legislation isn't required, is
it, for you to go ahead and do sealed bids on timber sales?
Mr. Bosworth. No. We do sealed bid timber sales right now.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Right now? You have the authority
to do it?
Mr. Bosworth. I believe that this proposal would require
that virtually all timber sales be sealed bid timber sales as
opposed to oral auction.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. But right now administratively you
could move forward and make all of your timber sales sealed
bid.
Mr. Bosworth. That may be possible with some policy changes
internally, and I am not sure whether or not it would require
legislative change. I don't know whether we can do it through
policy or regulatory approaches or not. But my belief is that
there are some reasons why in some cases we have been having
oral auctions that either has to do with law or maybe it has to
do with some things that we changed regulations on. I will have
to get back to you on that.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. OK. I just thought if your
approach was to believe that this was a good idea and it's a
better way to do it and you have the administrative authority
now, then you should probably just go forward and do it.
Mr. Bosworth. I am just not sure that we can implement that
fully without some legislative change.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. OK. Thank you.
The budget request anticipates for the Fiscal Year 20032.4
billion board feet of timber to be harvested. How much of that
is intended to come from roadless areas?
Mr. Bosworth. I think the number is 2.0.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Billion?
Mr. Bosworth. Billion board feet.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. OK. So, I am high here. Two point
zero billion board feet.
Mr. Bosworth. I don't believe that there would be any that
is being planned right now for roadless areas.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Is any of that from the Tongass in
Alaska?
Mr. Bosworth. There could be some from the Tongass. That is
would be an exception to that, some of the roadless areas in
the Tongass. I can give you the figures for the Tongass
specifically, if you would like those.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Yes, I would like those. Aside
from the Tongass, there wouldn't be any from roadless areas?
Mr. Bosworth. I am not aware of any from roadless areas. I
can check that, but I don't believe there is any planned from
roadless areas.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. I have just been shown this. I
guess this is the budget justification. It is 2395 board feet.
Mr. Bosworth. Let me have Hank address the volume number.
Mr. Kashdan. There is a table in the budget justification.
The 2.4, I believe, is what is being shown as timber harvest.
The 2.0 is the planned offer volume. The timber harvest is
planned at 2.4. Our reporting and accomplishment measures are
based on timber offer, which is the 1.999 amount.
Mr. Bosworth. The timber harvest is the harvesting of
timber from sales that sell this year and last year that are
three or 4-year sales. So, that is sort of the estimated amount
of timber that is going to be harvested from those existing
timber sales.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Does the 2.4 include salvage
sales?
Mr. Bosworth. It would include both salvage as well as
green timber sales.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman.
The very patient gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Bosworth, would you run again through the different
types of sales there are and contracts on bids. It sticks in my
mind that how could we have a sale without a reduction in fuel,
whether it was a good reduction in fuel or method in order to
harvest some good timber or if it was a reduction in fuel in
order to prevent forest fire or if it was a reduction in fuel
like we desperately need in Clearwater in order to increase the
elk habitat.
Tell me why we would have a removal of trees or whatever is
there if it wasn't a reduction in fuel.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we have timber sales, some timber sales
in some parts of the country where the purpose for those timber
sales is strictly to provide wood fiber that is not necessarily
a part of a fuel reduction effort.
Mr. Otter. But isn't the effect of it to reduce the fuel
loading?
Mr. Bosworth. It would remove some fuel when you take the
tree out, that's correct. But it may not be the kind of project
that would necessarily reduce the fire hazard because it may be
leaving more small fuels, fine fuels that would actually
increase the risk. So, if it is not designed from a fuels
reduction standpoint then it may be meeting other purposes, but
it may not meet the purposes of fuel reduction. It may be in a
place where fuel reduction isn't a big issue or a big problem.
Mr. Otter. I have a question relative to the research and
development on invasive and noxious weeds. I don't have the
exact figure, but information that I have is that the Forest
Service is planning on using some of the funding that now goes
to the Montana Research Station for funding this SIMFOREST
software program. What exactly is the SIMFOREST plan and how
and why is it more important than the research and development
that we have going on at Montana Research?
Mr. Bosworth. First I want to say that the research budget,
the research program that is proposed does readjust some of the
priorities for research, both putting some dollars into forest
inventory and analysis and into a few other areas that this
budget would move us toward.
For example, areas that this budget would move us toward,
for example, the SIMFOREST. The SIMFOREST is really developing
a model that would simulate sort of--the ``SIM'' stands for
simulator that would be a simulation model that would allow a
better understanding of some of the complex interactions that
take place with a growing forest. It would particularly be
helpful to private landowners and consulting foresters maybe to
better understand what would happen if they do certain kinds of
forest management on their particular piece of land.
It is only in the very early stages conceptually. It is an
area that could be very beneficial, particularly to private
landowners.
Mr. Otter. In this simulated model of forests, would that
include an opportunity to see what kind of a TMDL addition
loading a forest fire would have on a watershed and whether or
not it would contemplate then having to stop other legitimate
activities on the watershed because of a forest fire?
Mr. Bosworth. We are very early in the process at this
point in looking at this. But let me have Robert Lewis, our
Deputy Chief for Research and Development, give you a more
specific answer regarding the SIMFOREST model.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. The SIMFOREST is a technology
transfer methodology that will allow us to take research data
and simulate forest management of all types over time. Fiscal
Year 2003 would be the first year of this particular program
and a number of research stations will be involved. In fact, we
will start a fairly new unit at Moscow, Idaho with about $1
million of that program going to it for 2003.
Earlier you wanted to know about the FIA Program. FIA is a
very high priority for the agency. We developed a strategic
plan to fully implement the FIA program and so the
administration proposed full implementation in 2003 as we had
outlined in the strategic plan for FIA.
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much. I would like to follow that
up with another question. You were here with Lyle Lafferty,
weren't you here with Lyle Lafferty and Gail Norton a couple of
weeks ago? You mentioned the SIMFOREST then. I got the
impression that it was up and running and you weren't going to
need any money for it; that you already have a product.
Mr. Lewis. Well, the SIMFOREST is a different new
initiative that is not specifically geared to the National Fire
Program but for all forest management activities including
silviculture. Actually, you can look at stands and predict how
they would develop over time, watersheds, for example.
Mr. Otter. I see. Let me get back then now to Ms. Collins.
Maybe she can answer my question relative to we have certain
loading levels of total daily loading, TMDLs. We do have a lot
of activity because we have some locked in lands within the
forest boundaries and that sort of stuff.
It would seem to me, do we have any information on the
maximum daily loading that takes place as a result of a forest
fire on a watershed? Do we have any of that information?
Ms. Collins. Not on a daily basis as the fire is burning. I
don't think we do. In fact, while the fire is burning that kind
of testing generally is not done. It is done as we are right
away in there doing a burned area rehab work. That is where we
are starting to test for whatever water quantity issues we know
are going to be there from erosion.
So, we're in there right away looking at that and looking
at what needs to be done relative to that, looking at where we
want to plant trees and where we want erosion control, those
kinds of things.
Mr. Otter. I understand that. What I am concerned about is
hearing our assessment of whether to thin, whether to take out
a road in an area that perhaps we need to remove some more fuel
from that, as a result of our not taking that out and that
forest burns and the fuel loading is as heavy as it was 2 years
ago on the 880,000 acres and subsequently we calcined the earth
about 16 to 18 inches deep where nothing is going to grow for a
long, long time.
Then we used that TMDL loading as a result of that forest
fire to stop other activities on that watershed so it is sort
of a collateral economic damage that was going on there.
Another reason that we need to take at least into
consideration, is it advisable for us to remove that loading
rather than end up increasing the total loading on it on a
daily basis if there is a forest fire?
Ms. Collins. Right. So, you are basically arguing for doing
the kind of thinning that we need to do to reduce those kind of
catastrophic fires, at least that is what I think I am hearing
you say; get in there and pre-treat those areas so that you
don't have a catastrophic fire so you don't have that kind of
erosion problem. Is that what I'm hearing you say?
Mr. Otter. If we had had a basal measurement load on a lot
of those areas that burned in Idaho of 150 or 180 or even 200
or 250, but when we had 650 and 700 and 750 in the basal
measurement, it was such a load, I mean the earth may have been
scorched a little bit but it wouldn't have burned 16 or 18
inches deep like it did.
So, that is going to maximize the loading that is going to
be. As a result, that watershed is going to be damaged for a
long, long time. So, my question comes down as, if we are
making assessments on forest health based upon how good the
water shed is, what is the effect of the watershed burning
because we didn't go in and remove that.
Mr. Bosworth. You are making the same arguments that we
make for a lot of reasons why we ought to be implementing the
National Fire Plan. We need to be doing fuels treatments. We
need to be doing active management on the land so that we can
reduce the threat to both homes and structures and communities,
but also to municipal watersheds so we can reduce the effect on
other forest resources such as soils and water quantity.
So, I am in full agreement that we need to be actively
managing particularly the drier Pine type part of the National
Forest System where we have the Ponderosa Pine, the drier
ecosystems that historically burned more frequently, like every
15 to 30 years. We need to be in there doing the kind of
activities that will decrease the severity of fires that go
through there, whether they be for communities or whether it be
for ecosystem health and watershed health.
In your consideration of allowing somebody to bid on a
forest sale that had no intent of going in and cutting to
remove the fuel loading, let me just say--and I don't know what
the results of all that would be--but let me just say that I
would certainly encourage my State, over which 65 percent is
Federal ground, that any damage that is done as a result of
that fuel remaining there after the bid was let and those
people decided not to take it out, like we do on cattle graze,
if somebody comes in and bids a cattle graze and that fuel
stays on the land and then there is a resulting fire and if
there is collateral damage done to the state land or the
private property, that whoever made that bid and then did not
execute it is held responsible, financially liable for the
other damage that was done.
I don't know how fast a program like that can go forward,
but to the extent that I can allow other States to do that
through Federal legislation, I am willing to do just that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. You are welcome.
The timber targets have been reduced continuously from, I
guess 12.5 billion down to 2 billion. When will the Forest
Service start meeting its timber targets and when will the
Chief start holding line officers responsible for meeting those
targets?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we are holding line officers
accountable for meeting all of the targets that we agree on
now. The timber target for 2003, with our proposal, would be
two billion board feet. My belief is that we have to shore up
our performance accountability in the Forest Service not just
on whether or not we are meeting timber targets, but whether we
are meeting our recreation responsibilities, our watershed
restoration responsibilities and the whole works.
My expectation is that when a Regional Forester takes the
dollars, then they agree to do the work. I expect the work to
get done. What I am going to keep focusing on is that my
intention is to under-promise and over-deliver. I don't want
the Forest Service making promises that in the end we can't
keep. That is why I am going to keep harping about the analysis
gridlock or the analysis paralysis that we are in because until
we get that fixed, I don't want to make a whole bunch of
promises of doing something more that I am not confident that
we are going to be able to accomplish.
Mr. Peterson. What are the consequences going to be for a
line officer who doesn't meet their targets, if he or she
doesn't get it done?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I guess I would have to wait. I mean
there is performance, they get a performance appraisal at the
end of the year. Some of it depends upon if there is one of the
30 different targets that they were issued, and there is only
one of them that they didn't achieve and there are reasons for
that, then it depends upon the reasons and it depends upon
whether or not they identified the shortfall and the reasons
for the shortfall ahead of time and let us know what the
problem was and we tried to see if we can fix the problem.
You know, some of these things are outside of their
capability to fix. But I want them to be managing the Regions
in a way that identifies whether or not they are going to
accomplish what they said they are going to do. If they can't
we are going to have to find somebody else that can do that
job. I do fully intend this year that we will meet our fiscal
year 02 target of 2.0 billion board feet. I expect that to
happen and it looks like we are on track for that to happen.
Mr. Peterson. Right. I am pleased to hear that. You may
have to send a sound out through the bushes that the rules are
going to be enforced because until you do, you know, behavior
won't change. I know a State agency that was so corrupt and so
bad that when a new administration came in they started firing
people for stealing.
It had been so commonplace that the courts, there were 30-
some people that I know of that were fired for stealing who all
got their jobs back. The public never knew this, but the courts
gave them their jobs back because stealing was so common in
that agency that they couldn't be the ones who were first
punished. From there on they were allowed, but because the
warning had been sent out. That is an extreme example, but it
is true.
Mr. Bosworth. But I do want to say that the Forest Service
isn't corrupt, and I know you were not implying that.
Mr. Peterson. No, I wasn't implying that. Let the record
show that.
Mr. Bosworth. But I also want to say that I believe we have
some really, really good people out there in the field that are
wrapped up in some really, really lousy systems.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, it is lousy. But you do have to put a
toughness out there. I mean, people have to buck up. You know,
when somebody gets penalized for misbehavior the word is out on
the street.
Mr. Bosworth. If you shoot one, thousands fall.
Mr. Peterson. That is right.
Charter Forests, since the administration released this
Charter Forest idea, the Subcommittee has been approached by
scores of community-based organizations designating their
national forests and respective backyards as Charter Forests.
In my mind this is a scathing indictment of the process
that governs the management of our national forests. It shows
how debilitating this analysis paralysis, as you so aptly
described it, has become. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, my view is that the notion of Charter
Forests is something that we should be working together with
Congress in looking for some opportunities on how we might
develop some proposed legislation that would allow us to
experiment with some ways that would help us to work our way
through some of these processes.
In the meantime, I don't intend to wait and see what
happens with Charter Forests. In the meantime I still expect us
to be looking at some of the things we can do with our
regulations and working with other agencies that have
regulations that affect us and working with them to try to see
if there are some changes we can make in our regulatory process
that would help us to streamline some of these processes.
Mr. Peterson. In your opinion, could you through regulation
do some pilot work?
Mr. Bosworth. There are some things that we can do within
our current authorities, but generally it is going to take some
legislation if we want to make any significant difference.
Sally, do you want to add to that?
Ms. Collins. The only thing that I would say is that we
have been doing some of these things for quite a while. We have
a couple of pilot projects out there where we are working with
BLM really closely, sharing some authorities and getting some
great efficiencies.
In fact, this administration is proposing additional
collocations between agencies. So, we have those kinds of
pilots out there. We had other kinds of reinvention kinds of
pilots where we are looking at different budgeting kinds of
systems and learning from those pilots.
So, we had a history of trying that and actually even
before evolving to the Charter Forest idea had spent some time
talking to our field organization about what are some ideas
that you might have or we could pilot some ideas around the
country, a different way to accomplish NEPA on emergency
projects, for example, or something else.
So, the ideas are flowing and it is not just around Charter
Forests but they are flowing around a whole lot of other kinds
of things that we could do that may not require legislation.
Mr. Peterson. Do you think you could do a prototype Charter
Forest without legislation?
Ms. Collins. Well, I think it really depends on what we
want to do and how far we want to go. I think that we could do
a couple of different kinds of things. Now, some of the
authorities we have on the Baca Ranch, for example, require
legislation. We couldn't quite go that far. So, I think it
depends on how broad a range we want to explore in terms of
some authorities and some ideas.
Mr. Peterson. Next question: Permanent extension of the
recreation fee demonstration program was proposed in the
President's budget. Tell the Subcommittee why you think it is
important for Congress to give permanence to this user fee
program.
Mr. Bosworth. We have been experimenting now with the fee
demo process for a number of years. We have learned a lot by
experimenting with it. It has been a demo process basically and
a demonstration process. We found things that worked. We have
found things that didn't work quite so well.
Some of the main principles that we have discovered though
are that I guess may be self-evident, but there are things like
if you make sure that the dollars go back to the area where the
people are recreating, they are a lot more supportive of the
process, in fact, in some cases very supportive of the fee if
they know that those dollars are going to thing back to the
area that they are interested in, where they recreate on a
regular basis.
The other thing that makes a big different is if people see
an improvement immediately when you start charging fees. If
there aren't things that they can see that are the things that
they would like to have happen, then they are not going to be
very supportive.
We have limited dollars that are available to us in terms
of our recreation budget. The recreational use of the national
forests is increasing exponentially. People have expectations
of having a decent experience when they get to the national
forests.
I don't support the idea of charging everybody who comes to
the national forest or anywhere near that, but I do think there
are some places like we are experimenting with in the fee demo
process where it makes sense to charge additional fees. We have
been at it long enough, I think, that where we can demonstrate
that it is a good project, a good process and we would like to
work with you in getting some kind of more permanent authority.
Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have one question that I want to close with. That is, I
noticed in the budget where you have $131 million for
additional land acquisition for the Forest Service and I also
noticed where some of the funding that you are asking for is to
go to kind of slow the growth of backlogged maintenance that
you need, which would suggest to me that you have maintenance
that continues to grow and needs that continue to grow on the
land that you now have.
That leads me to the question of why would you want to buy
more land if you are not taking care of what you have?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, in many cases lands that we acquire are
lands that are in holdings or surrounded by national forest and
actually in a lot of cases it is more efficient if it is all in
national forest ownership than having in-holdings there where
you are surveying the corners. It is more expensive to design
projects and so on.
Now, I don't want to imply that that is the way that all
the land acquisition would be. There is also in a lot of cases
tremendous support both locally as well as from Congressional
members for some of the land acquisition projects that are in
areas that are sensitive for people. They have sensitive
species on them. They are places where people want to recreate.
They don't want to see subdivisions developed and they would
like to have the Forest Service manage them as part of the
national forest system.
So, you know, there is a lot of support for it. I think
that within our budget we don't increase our costs in most
cases because again most or I think virtually all of them are
in-holdings that are usually closely surrounded by national
forest system lands.
Mr. Otter. Are these generally pursued under a willing
buyer-willing seller agreement?
Mr. Bosworth. Almost always. There may be a few cases where
we are looking for rights of way or something like that that
may not be quite so willing. But the land acquisition
purchases, they are not situations that I can think of right
now. I want to say that has never happened, but I can't think
of circumstances right now that are not willing buyer-willing
seller.
Mr. Otter. Sometimes the seller becomes willing because he
can't do anything else with his land because of the existence
of that species that you were talking about, potentially
endangered or some other activity that is limiting to the land.
I certainly have been helpful from time to time in my short
time in Congress in working between the Forest Service and
private landowners that were willing sellers. But mostly they
became willing sellers because there were a lot of other things
that they wanted to do to the land that they couldn't.
Finally, with the land acquisition as a whole, one of the
things that I am really concerned about, especially in a State
like Idaho, is that to the extent--and let me just take one
country in Idaho, Valley County--only 8 percent of Valley
County is private ground. To the extent that one more acre is
bought there, that school system loses the local infrastructure
of the cities and the counties, all of the services that are
provided for the counties have less of a tax base.
I would be in hopes that, especially for counties that say
50 percent or 75 percent--50 percent I would prefer--areas,
States with 50 percent, is that we do something to trade land
within that county if we possibly can to make something more
accessible for establishing a tax base because we are losing
the better part of our school systems. We are losing the better
part of local law enforcement.
The only base of revenues that those local folks have is
that land. Every time you folks buy an acre you take another
acre off of our tax roles.
Mr. Bosworth. In most cases land exchanges are the
preferable way to round out the in-holdings and to meet other
people's needs. Even with land exchanges, since we do that on a
value for value basis, sometimes there are occasions where the
piece of land that we are exchanging, that we are giving up, is
more expensive because it is near a community or something like
that.
So, it may be five acres that we are exchanging for 50,000
acres of land. So, we are acquiring more acres than what we are
giving up although the value is equal.
Mr. Otter. The problem of it is the Forest Service is not
paying your tax bill in the first place. If I have an acre of
Weyerhaeuser ground or Boise Cascade or Plum Creek or Potlatch
or any of the other folks that own massive amounts of forested
ground in Idaho, their average payment into the local coffers
is $8.80. The max that the Forest Service has ever paid is less
than $.80.
Mr. Bosworth. The Payments to States that was passed by
Congress and signed into law hopefully will be helpful to many
of these rural counties that depend on some of the national
forest revenues to at least be more assured of what the dollars
are that they are going to get. I think 76 percent of the
counties have elected to switch from the historic payment
system to the full payment amount under that public law.
Mr. Otter. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I generously
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Peterson. We are so thankful.
The only thing I would say about what you just mentioned is
that if PILT is an example that after five or 6 years we pay
half of the authorized amount for this program, as PILT has
done historically, then these people won't get what they need.
So, the history of the Federal Government payments in lieu
of taxes is deplorable in my view. It is just awful. That is
not your fault.
But dealing with the question the gentleman just raised, I
just happen to have a bill in my hand called The Good Neighbor
Act. It says that if 50 percent of a county is owned by the
four Federal agencies that to buy more land in that county they
must sell land, but with an exception. The exception is from 50
percent to 66 percent that they must hold a hearing in the
county affected. They must give notice to the county, State and
Federal elected officials and the Governor must approve.
Now from 66 percent up, that is where they own two-thirds
of it, the county elected officials must approve and the
Governor must approve and the hearing process must go ahead.
So, it is a process where there is an exception to selling
some if you buy some, but it puts the decision back at the
local level from 50 to 66 percent with the Governor and 66 and
up with the county officials. So, is this a process that seems
to make some sense?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I won't want to commit myself to it
without having a chance to really examine it carefully.
Mr. Peterson. It is pretty simple.
Mr. Bosworth. There is no question that it is a problem for
some of these counties that do have a very high proportion of
the country in Federal ownership. We do want to be good
neighbors. I have to look at that more carefully to really
know.
Mr. Peterson. We will get you a copy of it. It is pretty
simple. It is not legalese. It is straightforward.
Is there a long-term plan addressing all the tasks that
need to be completed in order to achieve financial
accountability?
Mr. Bosworth. We do have a long-term. But we have a plan to
achieve a clean financial audit and to clean up our financial
management system. That is a very, very high priority. We have
to get our accounting house, our financial house in order. We
completed this year the second year of operating under a fully
compliant financial system. We call it FFIS. It is the
Foundation Financial Information or Implementation System. I
can't give you exact words. But that is a system we have been
operating on now for 2 years. We know that we have some
problems with some of the feeder systems that work into that.
We are working on that with the department and trying to
correct those feeder systems.
We implemented an agency-wide strategy for valuing our real
property. Making sure that we have good real property
information and documentation of that information is critical
to getting a clean financial audit.
We are developing and implementing a field-based budget
formulation system which we refer to as BES and we are making
progress in our cash reconciliation process which is another
area that we have been short on in the past several years.
So, my hope and expectation, in fact my full expectation is
that we will be able to achieve a clean audit on Fiscal Year
2002.
Mr. Peterson. What are the plans and the timeline for
linking budget formulation to agency goals?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we have our agency strategic plan. That
strategic plan lays out what our goals are. We develop our
annual performance plan and there are budgets. Our budget
proposals are linked to our annual performance plans. We are in
the process of trying to make sure from top to bottom that that
is all aligned. I don't believe that it has been aligned as
well in the past as what it needs to be and we are working on
that.
Do you want to add somebody to that, Hank?
Mr. Kashdan. We have actually experimented. In Fiscal Year
2003 we tried to develop an annual performance plan that would
help the field in formulating its budget. We critiqued that
process and have now actually outlined the process for 2004.
Where we will incorporate our annual performance goals right
within the budget submission to the department, to be reflected
in the President's budget. So, we actually think we are making
some very good headway to integrating performance directly into
the presentation of the budget that ties back to the strategic
plan.
Mr. Peterson. When will you have a planning rule in place?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we have a planning rule in place now.
It was developed in 1982. Then we have an updated planning rule
that was January 2001. We have some concerns about that
planning rule and we have been working on a new planning rule
that uses the same concepts of a science-based collaboration
and sustainability.
What we are trying to do is simplify it, get it down to
fewer pages, frankly, and to make it affordable. Something
where we can actually get a forest plan completed in a
reasonable period of time, rather than taking 10 years to
develop a 15-year plan.
The expectation is to have a draft rule go out for public
comment probably in April and then we would have a 60-day
comment period and hopefully we would be able to come out with
a final rule late this year.
Mr. Peterson. If Congress provides funds for the economic
action program and stewardship incentive program, does the
agency have the capacity to implement?
Mr. Bosworth. If Congress were to decide to fund the
economic action program, you bet we would be able to implement
it. We have a lot of skills in doing that. We have been very
successful in the past in implementing economic action programs
and we would do a very good job of it.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I would like to thank you, Chief Dale
Bosworth, Sally Collins and Hank Kashdan, your support team,
for coming before us today and candidly answering our
questions.
I also want to thank the members of the committee and
member who have staffs who are still here who have additional
questions for the witnesses, we ask you to furnish them in
writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for
those responses.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you.
Mr. Otter. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. If there is no further business before the
Subcommittee, the Chairman again thanks the members of the
Subcommittee and our witnesses.
This Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-