<DOC>
[DOCID: f:2910445.wais]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Domenici, Bennett,
Campbell, Dorgan, and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS
opening statement of senator conrad burns
Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order. Senator
Dorgan is on his way. I will make my opening statement and he
can make his opening statement when he gets here. It is 10 a.m.
and we are going to run on time as close as we can, and get you
out of here. We know you have a lot of work to do, Chief, but
we welcome you here this morning and we appreciate you coming.
We are operating on North Dakota time here, see--Byron, thank
you for coming this morning.
The Chief was the regional forester in Missoula, MT, and we
had an opportunity to work together on some of the issues that
always seem to follow the Forest Service around. It was a
pleasure working with him then, and it is a pleasure to work
with him now.
The President's budget for the Forest Service is $4.058
billion in discretionary appropriations this time. It
represents a modest overall increase of 2.7 percent, compared
to the 2003 level at $3.95 billion. Most of the agency's
programs are funded at levels similar to last year. However, I
want to point out some that are not, and some areas that I find
disappointing.
There are some significant increases, however, the forest
stewardship program at $35.5 million and the forest legacy
program at $22.4 million, and wildfire suppression is $186
million. I believe the increase in the wildfire suppression is
particularly important, given the experience you have had for
the fire seasons of the past few years.
Last year, the Agency spent $1.3 billion putting out fires,
and the position of the Forest Service and how they handle
themselves should be commended. The American people are now
aware of what we can do to manage our forests in the areas of
prevention, and to keep small fires small fires, instead of
having these big ones that we have experienced over the last 10
years.
drought
Last year, and of course starting back in 1988, pointed up
that we cannot stand drought in our country and prevent these
fires or keep them under control. The agency was forced to
borrow $1 billion from nonfire programs, which caused
significant disruption in many projects, and some had to be
cancelled altogether. If the Forest Service spends as much
money in fiscal year 2004 as they did last year, it will still
need to borrow several million dollars from other accounts
under the proposed budget. I hope we can work with you, Chief,
and figure out some long-term solutions to this funding of
fireighting costs so these disruptions can be minimized in the
future.
fire preparedness
There is also a significant decrease in the proposed 2004
budget which I find troubling. The levels proposed for fire
preparedness, for example. This would cause a loss of over half
of our firefighters and engines we had on the ground last year.
Reducing our readiness capability to this degree will only lead
to more small fires escaping, and turning into the devastating
fires that we have seen in the past on the evening news.
burned area emergency rehabilitation
I am also concerned about the elimination of funding for
rehabilitation and restoring burned-over lands. Two years ago
this program was funded at the level of $142 million. We have
had two severe fires since then, which has burned millions of
additional acres. There are many areas in my State that burned
in 2000 that have yet to be treated or dealt with. If these
acres are not restored soon, they may be permanently lost to
invasive weeds and erosion.
Funding for backlog maintenance has also been decreased by
$46 million, compared to the current level. This is unwise.
However, on the financial management side I want to
congratulate you. I am very pleased to see the agency finally
obtained a clean audit. That is a credit to your office and
your work. I can remember when you came in 2 years ago, looked
at the books, and said, this is one area we really have to work
on, otherwise we will always have a credibility problem. So I
congratulate you on that. That is the first time that has been
done in a long time.
The monies--to work with you, though, not only in fire
suppression, but prevention, stewardship, forest legacy, and
forest health--all of these programs are necessary, and I
believe the American people are supportive of what you are
doing. The fires that were seen on television every evening
were devastating fires, and hot fires. These fires took
everything right out of the soil. Management adjustments have
to be made for future years, if we are to see healthy forests.
We also need to do some management work in the areas of
disease and bark beetle infestation. I would like to work with
you on those areas. We have some forests that need attention,
not only in Montana, but nationwide. Those areas are being
identified and need special emphasis.
I thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to
your testimony and again, congratulations on your audit. This
is our first year at this and I look forward to working with
Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. He is my new ranking member,
and Peter, it is good to see you back as we start down the
Interior appropriations. We look forward to working with our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle as this appropriations
process moves on.
Senator Dorgan.
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I, too,
look forward to working with you. Montana and North Dakota have
a rather lengthy common border, and I know that you know a lot
about----
Senator Burns. Thank God for the Little Missouri, right?
Senator Dorgan. That is right. You know a fair amount about
North Dakota and I know a lot about Montana, so I think we will
get along just fine.
Chief, thank you for being here. You run a big agency,
34,000 people and $4 billion, a big responsibility. You and I
met yesterday and talked a bit.
Mr. Chairman, I just got notice a few moments ago that
Senator Daschle has called a meeting of the Democratic
leadership at 10:30, so I am going to have to leave earlier
than I expected today, and I regret that is the case, but let
me begin my opening statement, then, make a couple of points
with Mr. Bosworth. I am going to submit some questions for the
record, but I want to make a couple of points.
firefighters
One, the chairman mentioned the issue of the firefighting
budget. You and I talked about that yesterday, but firefighters
have gone from 10,480 in fiscal year 2002 to 4,898 in fiscal
year 2004, fire engines, 995 to 465 during the same period. I
mean, it is wrong. This is not good planning. It is not good
management. It is not an appropriate approach to these issues.
You and I have talked about that.
I recognize that this comes from deep in the bowels of the
Office of Management and Budget, where they know the cost of
everything and the value of nothing, and I understand you
probably cannot say much about that because you are a public
servant who is going to have to support whatever is submitted
to us as a budget, but I think deep in your heart you know that
this does not make sense. We have got to adequately fund
firefighting and fire suppression and preparedness, and this is
not the case in these budgets. It was not last year.
We raised the point last year during the hearings and it
was sort of just dismissed, but the fact is that this has to be
dealt with, and doing the little tip-toe dance that Mitch
Daniels is doing on this does not do anybody any favors. That
is not the way to address these issues. I hope if I do not get
a chance to tell him, you will tell him that for me.
leafy spurge
Let me just--I want to show you--Mr. Bosworth, this is
leafy spurge.
Let me tell you something about leafy spurge. We have lands
that you are in charge of, the Forest Service is in charge of,
that do not deal with their weeds appropriately. The Forest
Service is not a good neighbor, and when you have got an
infestation of 30,000 or 40,000 acres of leafy spurge and you
do not control them, what happens is, everyone else who is on
the periphery of the Forest Service land is affected by it.
The reason I brought this plant today is, I wrote an
earmark of $200,000 in to have some additional chemicals put on
the ground and to control leafy spurge on specific grasslands
in North Dakota, and the fact is, I saw no evidence that that
was put in the ground to control leafy spurge. Although the
Forest Service did a little tap dance for me to say, well, here
is how it happened, the fact is, I think it was subsumed into
payment for the bureaucracy, and I did not see any evidence
that there was additional control on the ground of leafy
spurge, despite the fact that that is what we put the money in
for, and we have got ranchers out there that are trying to deal
with this, and leafy spurge is one noxious weed, but in our
part of the territory it is one that is pretty devastating, and
we have to control these noxious weeds on our land. This is
Forest Service land. We have a responsibility. If regular folks
do not control it, we are after them all the time, and the
Federal Government has to meet its responsibility, Mr.
Bosworth. You and I have talked about that. I know you are
looking into this.
At any rate, Mr. Bosworth, this is serious business for a
lot of folks in North Dakota, and I want to work with you on
that, and I mentioned the fire suppression. As a matter of
fact, on forest issues we rank 50th among the 50 States in
native forestlands in North Dakota, so I am a lot less familiar
with forest issues than many of my colleagues, who have great
familiarity with them, but I am anxious to work with you on
many of these issues.
grazing permits
If I might mention one additional point we have got with
respect to our grasslands in the Cheyenne Valley, we need a new
10-year grazing agreement, and I think on March 23 the current
one expires, so there is great concern that we would have a
circumstance were cattle to be taken off of those lands. You
told me yesterday that would not be the case, and that you
would do extensions until we reach a new agreement. For that I
am very appreciative, and I hope we can reach an agreement.
But Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging me to be able to do
this now so that I can go to that leadership meeting later.
Senator Burns. Yes, and do not let it go to seed. That is
all I ask.
He brings up a good point, I also want to bring it up, and
there is not a better place. He brought up grazing permits. We
not only have spurge, but we have spotted knap. And now we are
going to have a little lesson in weeds. I do not know what it
is in Washington, D.C. Just go to one of these glitzy Grey
Poupon and white wine receptions, and when they come around and
they ask what your main interest is in Washington, and you say
weeds, see how fast you are left standing there by yourself.
It is not a big thing here. It is like yesterday morning, I
offered to go down and help the guy get his John Deere tractor
out of that puddle, because it is just too wet to plow there.
noxious weeds
The grazing permit--because what he is trying to do, and
this problem of noxious weeds go hand in hand, Dale. The only
way you get this weed and spotted knap is sheep. Sheep will do
it. You can put chemicals out there, you can fight them with
hoses----
Senator Dorgan. To explain, sheep eat it.
Senator Burns. That is right. Sheep will get rid of noxious
weeds. And it is a problem in Montana, so I appreciate--we are
going to get along just fine. I found another weed guy. There
are not very many of us here, Byron.
Senator Dorgan. That is right.
Senator Burns. But this is something that has to be dealt
with. The grazing permits, and the control of noxious weeds go
hand in hand in our forest management.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, we could do a caucus of leafy
spurge, spotted knap, and creeping Jenny.
Senator Burns. And Russian thistle.
Senator Dorgan. And Russian thistle.
Senator Burns. You bet. We could get them all.
Senator Campbell.
opening statement of senator ben nighthorse campbell
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I sure do like this
hearing.
It sure is a lesson. What we really need in your budget is
something for more sheep, apparently. We probably will not have
that, but I do know that you recognize the real danger. All of
us come from western States that are on the committee today,
and the fire season out there, they tell us, even though we
have gotten a lot of snow in Colorado in the last few days,
they say is going to be every bit as bad as it was last year,
and as I look at the President's budget there is obviously a
slight increase from $4.7 billion to $4.8 billion. I do not
think that is nearly enough, and I have to associate my
comments with Senator Dorgan. I think that maybe the best thing
we can do is, the next time we have a big fire out there is
press OMB into service to come out there and help fight the
thing. Maybe they would recognize the real dangers that we
face.
But you know, as I travel around, like my colleagues from
the West, we are seeing more and more indicators that because
of insect infestation there is just mile after mile of dead
timber, which always is going to become worse fuel this summer.
I was down by Cortez, Colorado about 2 weeks ago, and I was
just amazed. All the pine in that area, it is almost all dead,
and you can just pick them out from the junipers and the other
trees. Whatever that insect is is just attacking pines, and by
next year there is just going to be a whole dead forest there.
Well, in any event, you know the devastating fires we had
in Colorado--last year between the Hayman fire and the
Missionary Ridge fire, the cost of property. Fortunately we did
not have many lives lost--I think only one or two, frankly, but
it is getting worse.
grounded fire air tanker fleet
But there is something else, too, that is really beginning
to bother me, and hopefully you will address it, or I will ask
it maybe in a question, but it is my understanding that one-
half of the whole tanker fleet is grounded now and out West,
boy, we really rely on those planes, and I do not know how we
are going to replace the planes or the money for the planes,
because I imagine they are pretty darned expensive.
A lot of those old World War II planes, the airframes are
getting fatigued and they just cannot fly them anymore, and
after those two tragic accidents last year I certainly
recognize they have got to be grounded if there is a chance of
killing some of the pilots, but out where we are, those things
are the first responders in many cases, and I have been to a
couple of fires where I have seen them start, seen the planes
take off, seen them put out, all within a 1-hour period of time
before people could even get out there, so I would like you to
address that if you could and just let me tell you that I would
like you to maybe also give us your prognosis about some of the
litigation.
analysis paralysis
I think all the attacks from the environmental community
every time you want to do a prescribed burn or do a clearing is
probably on the downside a little bit this year, because they
are clearly recognizing they are on the wrong side of public
opinion and most Americans, particularly out West, are saying
we have got to do a better job of managing the forest, and I
remember, perhaps it was last year or a year before, we were
told that about 41 percent of the money that was used in the
Forest Service program was either--it was called analysis
paralysis, I think was the word they used. It was used for
doing studies and preparing to defend yourself and, in fact, in
defending in the actual lawsuits, and I would like to know a
little bit more about what you see in that area, too, this
year.
But thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Feinstein. Turn your button on,
Dianne.
Senator Feinstein. I have only been here for 10 years. I am
a slow learner.
Senator Burns. Auctioneers know how to use these things
pretty rapid.
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Chief. Thank you.
Mr. Bosworth, in California I do not think we have the
leafy spurge or the Russian thistle, but we do have the
Yosemite toad and the fairy shrimp, and I want to talk to you a
little bit about the Sierra Nevada Framework Agreement.
I very much appreciate what you have done with respect to
the framework, particularly because it actually prevented a
listing of the California spotted owl as threatened and
endangered, but this past week the Forest Service announced
that it is planning to proceed with a plan to undo some key
elements of the framework, and I am very concerned about it,
because I think it is going to cause a huge problem of conflict
in the State, and I would like to give you a March 19 letter
from Mary Nichols, the Director of the Resources Agency, who
expresses concerns that you have not worked with the State in
determining this, and she says the outcome is unacceptable to
the State.
collaborative adaptive management program
They have proposed an alternative plan offering to bring
the resources of the State to a collaborative adaptive
management program in the 2\1/2\ million acres of wildland-
urban interface, where you have got Class 3 forest problems,
and my hope would be that you would work with the State. The
State--and I have had a conversation with Secretary Nichols,
and they understand, and they are prepared to be supportive of
the need to clean out the forest for a forest fire. She says
they want to work more aggressively than you want to work to do
it, so that is the first issue.
yosemite toad
The second issue is, there is something called the Yosemite
toad. You know, the fairy shrimp are microscopic little shrimp
that grow in vernal pools, so if a puddle lasts more than 90
days, a shrimp can pop up and it can stop whatever is going on
around it, whether it is a new vineyard or anything else. Well,
the Yosemite toad apparently comes out of pools at higher
levels where there are ranchers grazing on public land, and it
is my understanding that a number of these ranchers are
essentially going to have to be put out of business, and I
would like to ask you personally to take a look at that and see
if there is not any way ranchers can be allowed to graze in
other areas, rather than be put out of business.
I think there are anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen
ranchers who are going to be put out of business, and one of
the things that I really believe is also important as we do
these things is to protect the heritage of the State, and
ranching has been a heritage of the California frontier. I
would like to see it protected wherever I can, and I think
there is a way of moving around some of these pools without
putting the ranchers out of business, so I would be hopeful
that you would be willing to work with them.
bark beetle
The third problem is the bark beetle. I think all of us
have a big problem with the bark beetle. I know I talked to
Senator Kyl yesterday about Arizona. There is a big infestation
there, and we have 150,000 acres of forest that are infested,
particularly in the Lake Arrowhead area, the Idlewild area of
California.
The Governor has declared a state of emergency, and we need
to find a way to quickly respond to these forest epidemics to
reduce this spread, so I wrote you a letter on February 18,
which is a month ago, asking you to address the situation and
hoping for a response. I have not gotten that response as of
yet, so I hope today you might address what you are going to do
about the bark beetle as well.
lake tahoe restoration act
Additionally, 3 years ago Congress passed the Lake Tahoe
Restoration Act. As you know, the Tahoe National Forest
surrounds Lake Tahoe, and we authorized $300 million over 10
years, the Federal Government to contribute a third. There
really is good news. First, there is a huge consensus in the
population. Second, Lake Tahoe's clarity has been increasing.
It is now 73 feet, which is good news, but the disappointment
is that there is only I think $6 million in this budget to
continue that plan, and so I hope to be able to add to that a
little bit.
quincy library group
The final thing is the Quincy Library Group. As you know, I
was a Senate sponsor of that legislation. I am very supportive
of it. The project has had a number of delays, had a number of
bumps. The President proposes $26 million to implement it this
year the same as last year, and I am very hopeful that it will
be able to serve as a model in other areas, and so I would like
any comments you would care to make on that as well.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Bosworth.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Bennett.
opening statement of senator robert bennett
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I
was going to cover has been covered.
Senator Burns. Turn your mike on.
Senator Bennett. Oh, I have to do that, too. All right.
prairie dog
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I had intended to
say has been covered. Senator Campbell, because our States
adjoin each other, has exactly all the same concerns I have. I
have to say to Senator Dorgan, he says you get a prairie dog
and as soon as you get one you get a whole bunch. There are
parts of my State where they are endangered species, and you
have got a whole bunch, but nobody can do anything about them.
Senator Dorgan. But they are not really endangered. They
are just on the list, right?
Senator Bennett. Well, they are endangered because the
attitude in the local community is the three-S solution: shoot,
shovel, and shut up. Whether that really solves the problem, I
do not know.
bark beetle
Then Senator Feinstein talks about the bark beetle, the
combination of Senator Feinstein and Senator Campbell. In our
State the problem with the bark beetle are all of the lawsuits
that get filed, and the Forest Service is absolutely handcuffed
in dealing with it because every time they want to go into the
Dixie Forest to deal with the bark beetle, which is an enormous
problem, somebody files a lawsuit and says oh no, no, you
cannot do this because somehow this will invade the pristine
nature of the forest, and by the time they get through with the
lawsuit, then the bark beetle has expanded another few thousand
acres and the Forest Service says, okay, we are going to do it
now.
evironmental litigation costs
Well, they file a new lawsuit because it is a new set of
acreage, and there is great concern that we may, in fact, lose
the entire Dixie National Forest over this, so I just echo the
concern about the bark beetle that Senator Feinstein has and
hope, along with Senator Campbell, that we can find a way to
deal with the litigation. I would be interested, if you have
not got the number ready for us here, if you would supply what
percentage of your budget is taken up in fighting litigation.
We have asked that question of the BLM director and the
numbers are between 40 and 50 percent, depending on which area
you are talking about, and that is a huge, huge drain on the
land management capabilities. We try to give you the resources
you need in order to do the job properly, but if all of those
resources are eaten up in lawsuits--which interestingly enough,
the BLM always wins.
It is not a case that the BLM is doing a bad job of
stewardship. It is the fact that they are constantly being
diverted with lawsuits, and they have to prove over and over
and over again that their stewardship is fine in court, and one
begins to believe that the basic strategy is not to file a
legitimate lawsuit, but to hamstring the agency through this
device, and I would appreciate any statistics you could give us
about what percentage of your budget goes to lawsuits, or
defending legal activities, and whether or not it is rising.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Domenici.
opening statement of senator pete v. domenici
Senator Domenici. Well, by the time we get to me, I have
all the same problems. I would say that we did submit to Deputy
Under Secretary Dave Tenny questions with respect to the bark
beetle in New Mexico. I would appreciate it if you would look
at the question and get it answered.
We have a very old, long-infested piece of BLM forest up in
Northern New Mexico. It is already beginning to rot, it is old,
and it is growing. We submitted some questions about treating
and the like to which we would like to have some answers.
You know, about now in my life in the Senate, I kind of get
tired of coming to meetings and complaining that litigation is
taking all our time. We cannot get anything done. I really wish
that people like you would tell us what we ought to do so that
we do not have that situation. I am not interested in having
another long list of how much time it is taking. We are not
doing anything to change the situation, and most of you all say
that we cannot change it. It is the law.
I think we ought to give it a try, even if it is some very
significant surgery that we have to do on these statutes.
Something is amiss when we cannot take care of the problems
that are so patent that anybody with an ounce of common sense,
a few dollars, and a little bit of expertise would at least get
started on some of these things, but we cannot.
stewardship contracting
Let me suggest, if you look at this year's budget, in all
deference to the President, you will not get much done this
year, either. By the time we run out of money, when we cannot
put out the fires and we start borrowing again, the good plans
you have got going will get stopped. There is not enough money
for the programs to clean the forest and thin them either, from
what I can tell. I hope I am wrong, but that is what it looks
like to me.
I have one ray of hope, and I hope it does not get bogged
down in court so it takes forever. I do have a strong sense
that if you all will apply the stewardship contract approach in
the right way, and we do not get ourselves in lawsuits where we
have acted improperly, I believe there is a real chance you can
have companies that will go in and contract to clean and manage
and thin out in exchange for what they can take off the forest.
You might get a lot of work done for not too many dollars that
can quite properly be managed. I think it can be used for
cleaning out infestations and anything.
Right now, however, it is deemed by the environmentalists
to be a subterfuge for logging. To the extent I read it, I see
all the ways we could use it that would not be logging, would
not be any subterfuge to get around the logging laws. I hope
you can find ways to use stewardship contracting, and I hope
you all think it is a good approach. I see no other way, based
on personnel, management capacity, and money to get the forests
of America managed and back where they are a credit.
So with that, if you can comment on that later, fine. I
have some questions about my State that I will ask or submit
later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Domenici. I read your
statement, Mr. Bosworth, and I just want to point out a couple
of things that you have highlighted in your statement. I am
glad we are finally taking a look to see where we want our
forests to be in 100 years, and the management it will take to
get there within the next 100 years. That is foresight, and
hazardous fuels.
You may summarize your statement if you like. Your entire
statement will be made a part of the record. As with all of the
Senators who are here today, your full statement will be made a
part of the record.
Chief Bosworth, we welcome you and we look forward to your
testimony.
summary statement of dale bosworth
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you. Is this on? It is on, good. After
all these problems we had with that I was not sure.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do appreciate
the opportunity to talk about the President's fiscal year 2004
budget for the Forest Service. I have Hank Kashdan with me
today. Hank is the Director of Program and Budget Analysis for
the Forest Service. He will help me answer some of the
specifics in terms of dollar questions that you might have.
It is really good to have you back in the chair, Senator
Burns. I really appreciate the working relationship that we
have had in the past so it is good to have you there. It is
also good to have Senator Dorgan in the ranking minority member
position. It does make me feel a little bit like I am back home
in the Northern Region. I worked with both North Dakota and
Montana. Of course, we had lots of opportunities to work
together. It does make me feel like I am back home until I look
out of the window and see that I am still in the city. It is a
little bit different here.
I would like to acknowledge completion of the fiscal year
2003 budget process. It was important to us, the completion of
that. There are some thanks that you deserve for supporting
some things like: Fire reimbursement--$636 million I believe is
what we were reimbursed for the Forest Service--stewardship
contracting, which was mentioned by Senator Domenici; an
achievement of balance between fire suppression and fire
preparedness. Those were some of the things that came up in
some of the opening remarks.
stewardship contracting
I wanted to take this opportunity to say right now that I
am strongly supportive, almost to the point of obnoxiousness,
of stewardship contracting. I mean, it can be our future. It
can make a huge opportunity for us to be able to treat,
particularly, some of the fuels kinds of problems that we have.
There are other kinds of opportunities beyond fuels management.
We have been experimenting with it now for about 4 or 5 years,
thanks in good part to the chairman, and we have learned a lot.
This is an expanded authority which, I think, if we are smart
in the way that we implement it, we will have people from all
different viewpoints feeling like this is a good tool to help
us do the right things on the national forests. So I really
appreciate having the opportunity to expand the use of that.
fire preparedness and suppression
The other thing, the balance between fire suppression and
preparedness: In the 2003 budget we have the opportunity to
move the dollars back and forth between suppression and
preparedness, depending upon what the fire season looks like.
That can be very, very helpful to us because we are looking
at--we are talking about the 2004 fire season in this budget.
We do not really know what that is going to look like in 2004.
As we get closer and closer, then, you want to maybe move money
from one side to the other, depending on what the conditions
are like. So the way the 2003 budget is set up, that gives us
that flexibility to be able to make some of those adjustments,
which I appreciate very much.
audit opinion
I am going to talk mostly about healthy forests, the
national fire plan, and the Agency priorities. I do want to
mention our financial accountability first. I appreciate your
comments, Mr. Chairman, about our accomplishment in finally
achieving a clean audit opinion. It is very important for us to
have done that. I am very proud of the folks who worked really
hard to accomplish that. It is almost unheard of to, really, go
from no opinion to an unqualified audit opinion in just 1 year.
We feel very good about that.
But I also have to say that that is the very, very, very
minimum that taxpayers ought to expect of us. At the least, we
ought to be able to do that. We have a long ways to go yet in
our organization to be able to sustain that clean audit
opinion. We still have other changes we have to make in terms
of how we are organized, in terms of how we manage our
financial dollars. I believe that, while it is our job in the
Forest Service to be good stewards of the public lands, it is
also our job to be good stewards of the public funds. We intend
to do that.
A little bit, just sort of an overview, I guess, of the
fiscal year 2004 President's program: For me, the reality is
that it is a flat budget, the very, very best that we can
expect, given the international and domestic issues that we are
faced with. Having a flat budget is the most that we can
expect. That is what we have.
healthy forests initiative
We have legislative and regulatory initiatives, though,
that I believe will help stretch those dollars a lot further to
get more money on the ground. That would accomplish some of
those things like the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
To me, the key solution here is to be able to do more with the
dollars that we have. That is what some of these initiatives
tie into.
We have the Healthy Forests Initiative--many of you are
very, very familiar--and everybody from the West is very, very
familiar--with some of the fires that we have had--the problems
that the lack of good forest health has brought to us. Many of
these large fires happened because of the lack of forest
health.
Senator Feinstein mentioned the San Bernadino National
Forest. One of the problems is that we are in a drought
situation. There are way, way too many trees there for what the
conditions, the natural conditions, would have been because we
have been suppressing fires for years and years and years.
So now we are faced with the problem of trying to clean up
a place that is messed up because of insects and diseases--
particularly insects, bark beetles in this case, with a whole
lot of dead trees--rather than having treated it 10 years ago,
or 15 years ago--to have a healthy forest condition so that we
do not have to deal with the clean-up and then potential
devastating fire problems.
I think that is a good example. There are many other
examples that we have seen around the country that are facing
us that, if we can be proactive and get the work done on the
ground, we maybe hopefully can avoid some of those
circumstances.
I think there are lots of opportunities--the same thing in
Idaho again, or in Montana again--with stewardship
contracting--to try to achieve some of the same things there,
and that can apply to places--we have the same opportunities in
New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. Those are some great
opportunities that I am really anxious to continue the work
with this committee on.
We have had good support from this subcommittee in the
whole notion of forest health and long-term fuels reduction.
That is going to be the challenge for us over the next 10 to 15
years. I hope we can continue with that.
research
There are some other increases in the budget that I think
are important that I want to point out. There is an increase in
research that is targeted at sudden oak death and other
invasive species--an additional increase for fire-related
research, and that is going to be really important. We need to
do a good job of research. We need to be building our research
capacity back. When we get some of these events, like sudden
oak death, we have to have the capability to try to learn as
much about that as quickly as we can or we can end up with some
really difficult situations.
range management
We have an increase in range management to help improve the
health of rangelands--an increase for forest legacy, I think
that you had mentioned, better enable acquisition of
conservation easements on some important tracts.
legislative proposals
There is an array of legislative proposals that will do
things like: update the appeals process; streamline the
execution of the highest-priority hazardous fuels reduction
areas; expand partnership authorities; improve the ability of
partners to cooperate with the Agency--because right now it is
very difficult for people to be partners with us and so there
is a legislative initiative that would help that--and also to
make existing watershed enhancement authority permanent, known
as the Wyden authority.
It is also important to note that there is a proposal to
make the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent. I do
believe that a large majority of recreation users support that
program.
A lot of comments were made in the opening remarks that I
would be happy to respond to. I could respond, I think, more to
direct questions regarding these things. The one I would like
to just--several people talked about ``analysis paralysis'' or
``process gridlock.''
process predicament
We submitted--developed a report in the Forest Service
about a year ago in which we referred to a ``process
predicament.'' The purpose of that report was to identify
problems. It did not offer solutions but identified problems.
We used that as a means to try to get some kind of
understanding and agreement as to whether there was really a
problem. We believed there was.
My belief is that it was useful for that. People recognized
that we have problems and are willing to work with us.
Consequently, we have submitted a number of things. We proposed
some changes in our planning regulations. That, hopefully,
would reduce the time to do a forest plan from something like--
8 to 10 years is what it has been taking us--down to maybe 2
years. I mean, they are out for public comment right now. That
is what I would like to do: To be able to get them and shorten
that period of time.
categorical exclusions
We are proposing some ``categorical exclusions'' which
would mean that we would exclude certain kinds of projects from
documentation in an environmental impact statement. We would
still do analysis, still do public involvement. We just would
not document it in an environmental impact statement for those
projects that we have done over and over and over and over
again. We know, after having done it so many times, that we are
not going to have adverse effects on the environment.
So we are proposing a number of categorical exclusions that
we believe will help speed up the process for things like some
small-debris removal, for fuels treatment, and for restoration
and rehabilitation. Those are out for public comment right now.
They are not all favorable, the comments we get on those but,
again, I believe that if we get the opportunity to implement
some of those things, we can show people what we can do on the
ground. They will like what they see. We are trying to move
forward and deal with that issue.
prepared statement
So I am going to wrap it up now. I will answer questions. I
am happy to be in this job right now. It is an exciting time.
It is an honor to be here. I look forward to working with you.
I will be happy to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
2004 Budget for the Forest Service. I am accompanied by Hank Kashdan,
Director of Program and Budget Analysis for the Forest Service. It is a
great privilege to be here today.
Before discussing my testimony in detail, let me first thank you
Mr. Chairman for your support of the Forest Service and your focus on
management of the nation's natural resources. The Committee's support
of expanded authority for stewardship contracting as contained in the
fiscal year 2003 Appropriation's Act, exemplifies this focus. And
Senator Dorgan, let me start by congratulating you on assuming the
ranking member position on the Subcommittee. I look forward to working
with you in this important role.
overview
Teddy Roosevelt's rich legacy includes the Forest Service, and he
once observed that people should make few promises and then keep them.
Our agency, which will celebrate its 99th anniversary during the 2004
budget year, has made more than a few promises. I am often asked about
my vision for the Forest Service. The Forest Service must be viewed as
the world's leader in natural resource management by living up to
commitments, efficiently using and accounting for the taxpayer funds
that are entrusted to us, and treating people with respect. My vision
as we approach the centennial is to heed TR's advice. We are an agency
that keeps its promises.
The fiscal year 2004 President's budget request for the Forest
Service is $4.8 billion, $119 million greater than the fiscal year 2003
Enacted Budget. The fiscal year 2004 Budget provides funding to reduce
the risk of wild land fire to communities and the environment by
implementing the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. In addition,
it provides funds to enhance the ability of the Forest Service to meet
multiple demands. The major departure from fiscal year 2003 is an
increase of $187 million for wild land fire suppression and additional
increases in funds for forest and rangeland research, forest
stewardship, forest legacy, range management, and hazardous fuels
reduction.
This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative in order to help reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires
to communities and the environment. The fiscal year 2004 budget
proposal contains a combination of legislative and funding priorities
the President feels are necessary to address this need, as signaled in
his State of the Union message. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds
on the fundamentals of multiple use management principles that have
guided the Forest Service since its formation. These principles embody
a balance of conservation and balanced approach to the use of natural
resources that are valid today in working with local communities,
States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.
accountability
In my testimony today I want to discuss in detail how the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget and accompanying legislative
initiatives will improve the health of our forests and rangelands, but
first let me focus on the agency's effort to improve its financial
accountability.
When I began my career, the Forest Service was viewed as a model
federal agency, accomplishing our mission for the American people. I am
pleased to share with you today a stride that takes us closer to the
reputation of a generation ago. Through the extraordinary efforts of
our employees across the nation, we and our USDA counterparts have
achieved an unqualified audit opinion for 2002. This is an important
step in a continuing effort to fulfill promises previous Chiefs and I
have made to get the Forest Service financial house in order. To
progress from no opinion to a clean opinion in just one year is
unprecedented. This unqualified audit opinion sets the basis for our
next steps, which include additional financial reforms to efficiently
consolidate financial management personnel; improve the effectiveness
of the financial management system as part of the funds control and
budget execution process; and improve the quality of account
reconciliation. It will take as much work to keep that clean financial
opinion as it did to earn it. But, this important accomplishment of a
clean audit opinion demonstrates the progress we are making in keeping
our word.
process predicament
When I met with you a year ago, gridlock and analysis paralysis
directly affected our ability to deliver on many promises: to protect
communities from catastrophic wildfire, to provide a sustainable flow
of forest and grassland products, and to sustain the landscapes used
and enjoyed by the American people. These problems still exist, but the
Forest Service has taken the initiative to deal with this process
predicament within its authority by proposing regulations and policies.
I believe we are on the road to success. We proposed a revised planning
rule to provide a more readily understood planning process--one that
the agency can implement within anticipated budgets. We proposed new
processes to simplify documentation under NEPA for management
activities that do not significantly affect the environment--small,
routine projects that are supported by local communities, such as
salvaging dead and dying trees or removing insect infested or diseased
trees. We propose to work with you and the American people to keep our
promise that these measures are about sustainable land stewardship.
president's management agenda
The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a
comprehensive strategy to achieve the objectives of the President's
Management Agenda. Today I'll highlight a few of the significant
efforts we're making to improve Forest Service management and
performance. In the competitive sourcing arena, we will conduct public/
private competitions on 3,000 full-time equivalent positions during
fiscal year 2004, identifying the most efficient, effective way to
accomplish work for the American people, as identified in the Agency's
Efficiency Plan which has been submitted to the Administration. Our e-
government energies will move beyond web information delivery into four
important areas: incident planning and management, recreation services
and information, electronic planning record, and the federal and non-
federal assistance process. We are instituting critical oversight
controls to keep wildfire suppression costs as low as possible while
protecting communities and resources and improve our methods of
reporting wild land fire suppression expenses. Several streamlining
efforts are underway to reduce indirect costs and better examine the
role and structure of various Forest Service organizational levels.
An element of the President's Management Agenda concerning budget
and performance initiative, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
analysis provides a standardized set of performance management criteria
that provides a consistent evaluation process to identify areas of
performance and budget integration they should improve. In fiscal year
2004, the Wildland Fire Management and Capital Improvement and
Maintenance programs of the Forest Service were selected to participate
in the first round of assessments using the PART. The PART analyses for
these programs indicated that funds need to be better targeted within
the Wildland Fire Management program while the annual performance
measures of Capital Improvement and Maintenance program inadequately
linked to ongoing management initiatives aimed at addressing the
maintenance backlog.
rangeland management
The President's budget provides a $2.6 million increase that
supports a significant Forest Service promise--to make progress on
completing environmental analysis on national forest rangelands. The
funding increase will enhance our capability to manage livestock and
support communities where rangelands are an integral part of the
economy and way of life.
forest service research
Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean
water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and many other values. Key to
sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying
integrated resource management systems based on the best science
available. A $2.1 million increase in forest and rangeland research is
a valuable addition to our program. Some of the increase will support
research and development tools essential to prevent, detect, control,
and monitor invasive species and restore impacted ecosystems. Other
emphasis includes a pine bark beetle program that looks at new
management strategies, better utilization of bark beetle trees, and
developing additional treatment options for managers and landowners.
Programs to identify new biological control agents and treatment
methodology and to develop integrated pest management technology for
land managers will also be accelerated. The President's Budget
recognizes the need for research to support the full range of
challenges faced by land and resource managers because challenges don't
stop at National Forest System boundaries. Addressing the issues
associated with America's forests and grasslands--including hazardous
fuels, protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, invasive
species, and pathogens--doesn't depend upon who owns the ground.
Keeping this promise goes beyond the basic and applied science
functions of research. We also need to bridge the gap between research
findings and results on the ground. The request reflects the importance
of technology transfer, internally in the Forest Service and externally
through our university and State and Private Forestry program partners.
state and private forestry
Through close cooperation with State Foresters and other partners,
our State and Private Forestry Program provides assistance to
landowners and resource managers to help sustain the Nation's forests
and protect communities and the environment from wildland fire. The
President's budget contains an increase of over $31 million for these
programs. While most of the forest health management, cooperative fire
protection, and cooperative forestry programs continue at fiscal year
2003 levels, forest stewardship and the forest legacy program reflect
an increase. A $34 million increase for forest stewardship supports the
objectives of the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Initiative,
and the Forestry Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. The increase will
strengthen our partnerships through a competitive cost-share program,
leveraging the effectiveness of federal funds to reduce hazardous
fuels, improve invasive species management, and enhance forest
production from state and private lands. This increase will support
increased private landowners' investment in the management of small
diameter and underutilized forest products. In the forest legacy
program, the President's budget proposes a $22 million increase to
conserve environmentally important private forests through partnerships
with States and willing landowners. The budget will support
partnerships with up to ten additional States that have not previously
participated in the program. We expect total conservation of more than
200,000 acres, benefiting wildlife habitat, water quality, and
recreation.
the next 100 years for america's national forests and grasslands
Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest
levels represent the greatest threat to the National Forests. However
loudly voiced or strongly held these views may be, they are not
accurate for the reality of management of the National Forests in the
next 100 years. This year's budget request supports a program to offer
two billion board feet including salvage sales.
The request addresses two key long-term challenges to America's
National Forests and Grasslands: the build up of hazardous fuels and
the spread of invasive species that seriously impair ecosystems. In
August of last year, the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative (HFI). Its objectives include streamlining the decision-
making process and continuing our long-term commitment of working with
communities to achieve a meaningful level of public involvement.
We are committed to our continued partnership with those that use
and enjoy America's National Forests as well as those that value them
as part of our nation, no matter where they live. Although we have made
progress, we must do more. Last year, the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior proposed new legislation to authorize permanent
stewardship contracting authority, expedited review, hazardous fuels
reduction projects, and address a burdensome administrative appeal
process. President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Healthy Forests
during the State of the Union Address. We are committed to working with
you as you consider the proposals of the Secretaries.
Hazardous Fuels
The presence of large amounts of hazardous fuels poses a tremendous
threat to people and to public and private natural resources. The
Budget increases emphasis on protecting communities and property from
the effects of these combustible fuels--catastrophic wildfire. The
budget supports the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation
Plan, developed in close collaboration with governors, communities, and
the Department of the Interior. Through performance goals contained in
the implementation plan, we will implement hazardous fuels reduction
projects, improve fire suppression planning, expand forest product
utilization, protect lands from fire related spreads of invasive
species, and undertake key fire research.
The budget contains an increase of nearly $187 million for fire
suppression. Wild land fire suppression costs are increasing and are
having significant impact upon a wide number of Forest Service
programs. The cost increases are due a number of reasons, including
costs associated with national mobilization, wild land fire suppression
in areas of high hazardous fuel loads, large aircraft and helicopter
operations, and the increasing complexity of suppression in the wild
land-urban interface. To address these increasing costs, the Budget
proposes that the Forest Service and the Department of Interior (DOI):
review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation resources;
establish a review team to evaluate and develop cost containment
strategies; and revise procedures to improve reporting of fire
suppression spending. Together with other actions, this should enable
the Forest Service to significantly improve our ability to fight
wildfires without the major impacts to other programs we experienced
during last year's fire fund transfers. Last year we kept our promise
by aggressively fighting wildfire--long after funds appropriated
specifically for fire suppression were gone--and catching more than 99
percent of fires the way they all start, small. The request includes a
renewed emphasis on up-to-date fire management plans and wild land fire
use fires.
Accomplishing performance objectives under the National Fire Plan
is also consistent with the President's Management Agenda. Reducing
hazardous fuels, protecting against fire-related invasive species, and
targeting adequate resources to suppress wildfire promotes improved
health of Federal, State, Tribal, and local lands as well as enhancing
the economies of natural resource based communities. I again urge all
of us--cooperators and skeptics--to keep a focus on what we leave on
the land, not what we take from it. Effective, integrated hazardous
fuels reduction can leave us with clean, healthy water, improved
wildlife habitat, and more satisfying recreation experiences.
Invasives
Invasive species, especially weeds, pose a tremendous threat to
forests and grasslands. Whether kudzu or leafy spurge or knapweed or
oriental bittersweet vine, these unwanted invasives take hold and out
compete native species, changing the look and structure of entire
ecosystems. Our response to these threats needs to embrace an
integrated approach. In the coming year we will improve integration of
efforts among the National Forest System, Research, and State and
Private Forestry, and other USDA agencies.
legislative proposals
The fiscal year 2004 Budget contains several legislative proposals
that significantly advance common sense forest health efforts that
prevent the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires and move past
``process gridlock'' to improve agency land management efficiency. Four
proposals, in particular, promote the President's Healthy Forests
Initiative by reducing hazardous fuels; permanently authorizing
stewardship end results contracting; repealing the Appeals Reform Act;
and revising standards of judicial review in decisions that relate to
activities necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland
ecosystems.
Hazardous Fuels
As mentioned earlier, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior proposed legislation that authorizes emergency fuels reduction
projects in priority areas of federal forests outside wilderness areas.
This will allow timely treatment of forests at risk of catastrophic
fire and those that pose the greatest risk to people, communities, and
the environment. Our top priorities will include the wild land-urban
interface, municipal watersheds, areas affected by disease, insect
activity, wind throw, and areas subject to catastrophic reburn. We
would select projects through collaborative processes, consistent with
the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan.
Fundamental to better implementation of core components of the
National Fire Plan's 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy is the outstanding
cooperation that exists between the Forest Service, Department of the
Interior, State governments, counties, and communities in the
collaborative targeting of hazardous fuels projects to assure the
highest priority areas with the greatest concentration of fuels are
treated.
Stewardship End Result Contracting
Section 323 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003,
authorizes the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to
undertake, for a period of 10 years ``stewardship end results
contracting projects.'' The Administration had requested this extended
authority last year in the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. I
appreciate the action of the Congress in responding to the President's
request. We expect this tool, which had been available only to the
Forest Service on a limited pilot basis, to be used to implement
projects that have been developed in collaboration with local
communities and which will primarily improve forest or rangeland
health, restore and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce
hazardous fuel. Projects will have appropriate NEPA analysis and comply
with agency wilderness and roadless policies, the relevant forest plans
and appeals regulations.
Repeal the Appeals Reform Act
The Forest Service is subject to procedural requirements that are
not required of any other Federal agency. To address this issue, the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to
repeal Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (commonly known as the ``Appeals
Reform Act''), that imposed these requirements that I believe limit our
ability to work collaboratively with the public.
Standards of Judicial Review
To ensure that courts consider the public interest in avoiding
irreparable harm to ecosystems and that the public interest in avoiding
the short-term effects of such action is outweighed by the public
interest in avoiding long-term harm to such ecosystems, the Secretaries
of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to establish
revised rules for courts in decisions that relate to activities
necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems.
The President's Budget also includes legislative proposals to:
--Expand or clarify existing partnership authorities,
--Permanently authorize the Recreation Fee Demonstration program,
--Allow for the transfer of Forest Legacy titles to willing State
governments,
--Promote watershed restoration and enhancement agreements,
--Authorize a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund,
--Restore eligibility for State and Private Forestry Programs of the
three Pacific island entities in ``Compacts of Free
Association,'' and
--Eliminate requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 that duplicate the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
conclusion
We are fulfilling key promises in re-establishing sound management
throughout the Forest Service. I want the Forest Service to be an
organization people trust and once again point to as an example of good
government. Earning this trust means becoming good stewards of not only
public land and natural resources, but of public dollars, of public
trust. We know the work is not complete--there are still many
opportunities like large fire cost management, integrating information
systems, and making organizational changes in administrative support
operations--but we're making good progress.
Traditional functional and program boundaries do not serve us
well--they get in the way of our ability to keep our word. I am
committed to putting more effort into integrating our programs and
becoming better partners with people interested in leveraging our work.
The President's Healthy Forest Initiative exemplifies an integrated
approach to problems that affect not just national forests or national
grasslands, but America's forests and America's rangelands. It is an
opportunity for our private land neighbors, for research, for partner
agencies, for everyone concerned about America's forests and
grasslands.
Let me reiterate the deep honor I feel in being Chief of the Forest
Service in this challenging time and the equally deep sense of
obligation I feel to keep our promises to the American people. I enlist
your continued support and look forward to working with you toward that
end.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Chief. I have a couple
of questions, and then I want to move to my colleagues, because
everyone is on a tight schedule. I have just a couple of
questions.
RESEARCH
In your R&D, I noticed in your monies to do research--the
continual research of what we can do--how do we better manage
our forests? I was going to ask you: Do you ever commission or
grant out to land grant colleges for work to be done with
regard to soil or water management, or watershed, or any of
those things? Do any of the colleges across the country--I
mean--New Mexico State University, I know, has a forestry
school that is very good. Do you ever outsource any of that
research to these colleges and land grant schools?
Mr. Bosworth. We do a lot of work in terms of research with
colleges and universities. Yes, we do outsource research to
colleges and universities. It depends upon the circumstances.
In some cases, they are doing it in combination with our
research organization. In other cases, it is just strictly
outsourced to a college or university.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Burns. You might bring this up. I know some folks
believe that stewardship contracting is somewhat controversial.
I think you emphasized in your statement that stewardship
contracting is going to be sort of the centerpiece of getting
some things done on our forests that we need to be done. What
are the other main objectives that could be accomplished
through those stewardship contracts? How many contracts do you
plan to let this year?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the first part, the other kinds of
objectives: The whole notion behind stewardship contracting is,
first, to collaborate with the public up front, to figure out
what condition you want the land to be left in. You work
together to figure out what that may be. Then, under one
request for proposal, you end up with a contract that will
accomplish all the things that you want to accomplish on that
piece of land. In other words, you are bundling all the
activities together.
So it may be things like reducing fuels. You may be able to
do some work like habitat improvement for a threatened or
endangered species, or for other species, some restoration work
for a watershed, rehabilitation or restoration work. I think
there are great opportunities to do some of the noxious weed
kind of work that needs to be done as part of that.
So you do all those jobs together. Then there is some
value, there may be some value from some of the materials, some
of the trees that are there. The value that is there would help
offset the cost of doing that work. The contractor then would
be able to utilize that material. So it makes a lot of sense
because you work together and reduce the amount of dollars.
Senator Domenici. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Burns. Sure.
Senator Domenici. Have you not done that, experimented four
or five times in pilot projects?
Mr. Bosworth. We have--let us see--we had 28 projects each
year authorized for the last 4 years. It is a total--I do not
have a calculator. I cannot multiply that out in my mind right
now. Anyway, that is how many we are authorized to do.
We have not completed a lot of those but we gained a lot of
experience in working with the public in setting those up. We
have done multi-party monitoring where we had people from the
public to help monitor those experiments or those pilot
projects. They were working very well.
Again, we did not have final results in a lot of cases. We
have the final results in some and a certain amount of progress
in lots of cases. To me, the thing that was important--to
monitor and see how it was working--is public acceptance:
Whether or not we were actually getting people to look for
common ground and find common ground. That was the important
part.
In terms of the number of projects or number of contracts
that we have this year, it is difficult for me to answer that
specifically. You know, we have delegated the authority, or
will delegate the authority, to the regional foresters to use
that tool wherever they can use it. There will be some
sideboards. There are going to be more projects. We need to
train people. There is some work that we are going to have to
do now. We are expanding the use of that. I am anxious to get
moving. I am anxious to have more opportunity to show people
how it will work. I am certain it is going to be successful.
Senator Burns. Well, thank you very much. I am going to
move on. I was going to ask you about your--I see you brought
all your boxes of appeals to make some points. I will let
somebody else handle that end of it.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I very
much appreciate what you are trying to do to correct the long-
standing, I think, failed policy of fire suppression. I want
you to at least know that this Senator wants to work with you
in that regard. I am very concerned about the Class 3 areas in
the Sierra Nevada, which are about a third of the Class 3 areas
in those strategic areas of Class 3.
SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST
The San Bernadino National Forest supervisor, Gene
Zimmerman, told my staff that he believes solving the bark
beetle problem will require at least $300 million--at least--
just for that forest, including $5 to $6 million which is
needed immediately simply to ensure that: Evacuation routes are
maintained; critical fire breaks are established; and the
necessary manpower and equipment are on hand.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill provided about $3.3 million
for this problem but it is not enough. How do you intend to
address this issue financially?
Mr. Bosworth. The total amount that Forest Supervisor
Zimmerman is talking about--I have not scrubbed those numbers
myself or had my staff take a hard look at those numbers--but
there is no question that the problem there is going to be
extensive to deal with.
The regional forester, Jack Blackwell, has already
committed to shifting some dollars within the region to get
down to, shift them down to the San Bernadino NF because that
is an urgent problem. There is a will to deal with it. The
public down there is interested in dealing with it. So he is
going to be shifting some of those dollars.
They have already implemented some projects--I can get you
some exact acreages, if you would like, and some more specific
kinds of plans for what we can do--but we are not going to be
able to put $300 million into that in the short term. That is
just too much money.
We also need to be very strategic in where we locate the
kinds of treatments that we are going to do so that we can get
the most out of every treatment to protect the communities, to
protect the homes, and to protect the forest as well.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I recognize that $300 million is probably out of the can. As
has been said by others here, it is a really serious problem.
Anything you can do would be appreciated.
LAKE TAHOE
I wanted to ask you about the Lake Tahoe situation. As you
know, both California and Nevada are putting up their share of
money. They have had enormous success at raising money in the
private sector for that part of it. I am disappointed that so
little is in the budget for the Lake this year. I have another
question, too.
There was $21 million transferred from the 2003 budget for
Lake Tahoe to meet emergency wildfire suppression needs in that
area. The regional forester, the one and only Jack Blackwell,
has committed to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill
to restore those funds to Lake Tahoe. Chief, will you commit as
well to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill to
reinstate the funds?
Mr. Bosworth. Actually, the dollars that were--the way that
the payback--or the dollars to restore--the $636 million that I
talked about earlier--some of that would have been
automatically restored, about a third of it would not, of
National Forest System dollars. About a third of it would not
have been restored for Lake Tahoe. Regional Forester Blackwell
has agreed to move the dollars to make sure that Lake Tahoe
and, I believe, the Quincy Library Group as well--100 percent
of those dollars will be restored. He is doing that within his
own region. I appreciate the fact that he is taking that on and
doing that within the flexibility that he has. Those dollars
will be there. They will all be back in Lake Tahoe.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
LAKE ARROWHEAD
Can you quickly tell us what you are going to do in the
Lake Arrowhead area--now, this is for residence protection--in
those areas that are in the greatest danger of catastrophic
fire due to the tree mortality surrounding their property?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I am going to need some time to be
really specific. I can tell you that our folks are working very
closely right now with the county, with local law enforcement,
as well as fire departments. Together we can take what we have
to offer in the Forest Service, along with what the State,
counties, and local jurisdictions have to offer, to work
together to be able to provide that safety net that people
need, but I cannot be specific about----
Senator Feinstein. Maybe somebody could brief me on what
you are doing in those areas, the bark beetle infestation
areas----
Mr. Bosworth. We would be happy to do that.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. With some specificity. I
would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, I
recognize, as I am sure you do--we all do--we have got a huge
deficit this year. Demands are up. States all have deficits. I
have to tell you, I think when I look at your budget we are
being penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
WESTERN FOREST FIRES
Those fires are so intense out there. I do not know if you
have visited some this last year--like the one in Arizona in
the national forest down there, and on the Indian reservation,
or the Hayman fire in Colorado, or the Missionary Ridge fire--
but they are not like fires years ago. These things are--I
mean--they are hotter, move faster, are more unpredictable--
they are worse.
I visited the Missionary Ridge fire near Durango while the
firefighters were there. I talked to a couple of firefighters.
They told me that the flames were moving at about 50 miles an
hour sometimes. They actually saw birds being burned out of the
sky. They could not even out-fly the flames. That is a hot
fire.
I think that, you know, we are going to pay the bill no
matter what. Durango is a good example. After that particular
fire, there was a lot of sediment washing down from the burn
area. They came back and asked me to get them one-half million
dollars in the appropriations process to upgrade their water
filtration system plant to be able to handle that increased
sediment, which I did. They got the money. I would have rather
put that money into your budget, very frankly.
It seems to me that when we do not plan ahead, do not have
adequate precautions, we are going to pay the bill. We are
going to pay the bill anyway at a later date. This all comes
out of the same taxpayer's pocket one way or the other. I just
think that if we had more money through the administration's
request, it would not cost us on the other end. It is going to
cost, as I understand it, about $3 million to stabilize some of
the areas around Denver where sediment is already washing
down--and will even more after this last huge snow begins to
melt--and washes into the filtration system. I just wanted to
pass that on and maybe ask you a couple of questions.
RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
By the way, all the calls we are getting in our offices out
West are absolutely against that fee demo, making that Fee
Demonstration Program permanent. I think most people think, as
I do out there, that if you are using the land--like you are
taking firewood or cutting Christmas trees or something of that
nature--when you take something from it--or filming for profit
or something--then it is fair to ask them to pay some kind of a
fee. But most of the people I talk to out there are absolutely
opposed to paying just to go out and look at what they think
they own as an American citizen in a forest. I thought I would
pass that on to you.
WESTERN WATER RIGHTS
Let me ask you just two questions. One deals with water.
Out West, we are very, very protective of our water, as you
might know. It goes back to years and years ago. Mark Twain
once said that whiskey was for drinking, water was for
fighting. They still think that way out there, as you know. We
have this constant struggle between those people who believe
there is an implied Federal reserved water right and those
people who think that all water within a State ought to be
adjudicated through the State water courts.
I would like to know your view on that, because in some
cases--and I know it depends a lot on which administration is
in power, too--but in some cases the Forest Service has tried
to impose bypass flows in our national forest and circumvent
working with State instream flow programs. I am sure you are
aware of that. I would like you to give me your view on where
you think that is going, particularly as we possibly face
another drought in the West.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the first thing is that States
adjudicate water rights. My belief is that people who have
water rights, that is their water. The State is the
organization that determines who has those rights.
I also think that, in the end, the way to work with this is
in a collaborative way to find common ground. The land is not
worth much if you do not have water on it whether it is private
land or whether it is public land. So it is important, in my
view, that: We work together with those folks that hold the
water rights; do what we can to try to make sure that we are
still able to keep the functioning of the streams intact and
also meet their needs; but do it in a working-together way
rather than in a going-to-court or a regulatory way.
I may be a little bit naive, but I believe that in most
cases if you really sit down and try to work toward each
other's interests, you can find solutions to those problems.
Senator Campbell. Well, I would like to think so, too. But,
as I said, sometimes it depends on the administration. It seems
to me the past administration was hell-bent on usurping State
water rights in all of our rivers that come through our Western
States. We had those constant fights. I wanted you to be aware
of that.
FIRE IMPACTS ON WATERSHEDS
Let me just ask maybe one more, and that is: When I think
in terms of how watersheds are affected by these murderous
fires we have out now, it would seem to me the Forest Service
would get ahead of the curve and try to work with
municipalities in offering some suggestions or recommendations
or something before the fires start on what precautions they
ought to be taking. Do you have anything like that in place in
the Forest Service? I see Hank is nodding his head so you must
have something.
FIREWISE
Mr. Bosworth. We have a program called FIREWISE where we
work with, usually through the State Foresters, the local
community in making sure that people have the information to
know what things they can do on their own property and around
their own homes.
WATER FILTRATION PLANTS
Senator Campbell. Yes, I knew of those because I have sat
in some of those meetings. I meant particularly dealing with
water filtration plants and precautions that can be taken by
towns to protect their water after a fire.
Mr. Bosworth. I guess I am not aware specifically in terms
of water filtration. We would certainly have some expertise
that could work with that. We also have some programs, like our
Forest Stewardship program under State and Private Forestry,
that helps in terms of how you manage on private land, how the
vegetation is managed to help private landowners do things that
will keep the land in better condition in the event that you
have a fire. You would not need to deal with the problem in
terms of filtration through plants. I would be very happy to
explore some of our State and Private Forestry programs to see
whether there are some things that can get at that more
directly.
Senator Campbell. Well, I might compliment you on one
thing. I know in our State--and I think it is probably pretty
much like this in other Western States, too--that Federal and
State Foresters really work well together. I have done a number
of town meetings--the things that we all do--and invited them
to come answer some questions about it. They really have a very
close working relationship and good communication between
States and the Federal level.
They are all strapped with the same problem--that is, not
having enough resources--but they do have tremendous lines of
communication.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DROUGHT
Again, most of the questions that I am concerned about have
been asked. You are aware of the fact that we are in the fifth
year of a drought. It seems hard to realize here in
Washington--where we have just dug out from under huge amounts
of snow and now we have rain coming down--but in Utah the
conditions are very bad. I would hope you would do everything
you can. I know you are doing everything you can.
I simply want to underscore that. We are reaching a point
where we need, not just good stewardship, but we need heroic
kinds of statements to deal with the challenges of drought.
Aside from doing a rain dance and making it rain--we will
assign that to Senator Campbell--I am not quite sure what you
can do.
Senator Burns. He said it is a matter of timing.
Senator Bennett. I see, okay.
I want to compliment you on the people you have on the
ground in Utah. We have a good relationship in our office with
Forest Service personnel in Utah. We very much appreciate their
cooperation. Other than that, as I say, all the issues relating
to the bark beetles and litigation, et cetera, probably have
already been covered.
Senator Campbell. Would the chairman yield?
Senator Burns. I would.
GROUNDED AIR TANKER FLEET
Senator Campbell. I had asked you earlier if you would
comment on the tanker fleet, too, that many of us are worried
about so much, if you could do that.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes. As you know, we had two accidents last
year where the fatal crashes were air tankers: one was a C-130A
and the other was a PB4Y. Subsequently, the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, Kathleen Clarke, and I commissioned
a blue ribbon panel. It was a very high-level group of people
from outside the Forest Service to evaluate our aerial
firefighting program. They came back with some recommendations.
We are looking through those and implementing some of those
recommendations.
But one of the things we have done is, we have grounded the
C-130As and the PB4Ys. We are taking the rest of the large
aircraft and, working with FAA, have developed an inspection
and maintenance program. We are in the process of inspecting
those before we are going to put them back in service. Once the
inspections are completed, and we find out what kind of
maintenance has to be done, then we will be able to move
forward.
It is my expectation that we will have retardant aircraft
available this year. It may not be at the full level that we
had last year. We are supplementing the numbers with what we
call SEEDS--it is a single-engine aircraft as opposed to the
larger ones. Then we also have--we are looking at more heavy-
lift helicopters.
Senator Campbell. Those will be leases, I guess. You do not
own any of those.
Mr. Bosworth. That is right. The other part of it is, we
need to make sure that we are putting those retardant aircraft
in the right places. What I mean by that is, I think that the
best place for using those is in the initial attack and
extended attack. When you get these huge fires--like the Hayman
fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, and the Missionary Ridge fire--
in a lot of cases, heavy-lift helicopters are much more
effective in terms of trying to protect private homes. You have
seen how big those fires are. You know, dropping retardant in a
lot of cases is just dropping dollar bills out of the aircraft
and not doing much more than that.
We will be prepared this year--maybe not at the full level,
as we were, but we will be functioning very well.
Senator Campbell. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
First let me compliment you on your enthusiasm. I think it
could be a good year for you and for the Forest Service. I was
going to ask about your airplanes. You have answered that to my
satisfaction.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
I noted from my staff that a couple of weeks ago, in the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you testified there
that you expected to be able to put out 98 percent of the fires
in 2004. I am wondering how you are going to do that. It is our
understanding you are going to have about half the firefighters
you had in 2002.
Mr. Bosworth. What I would like to do first is put a chart
up here for you to take a look at. I believe you have a copy of
it in front of you there. It is the chart that shows--if you
will notice there on the left, the blue circle: That is the
total number of fires that we had between 1996 and 2001. That
is that circle. The little pink pie shape in there is 1.8
percent of those fires. That 1.8 percent are those fires that
exceed 300 acres.
So then if you go to the right and you look at the top
circle, that is our suppression costs. What that shows is that
86 percent of those suppression costs came from that little
pink wedge on the left-hand side. In other words, the 1.8
percent of the fires caused 86 percent of the costs and 95
percent of the acres burned. The idea, then, is to keep that
little pink wedge as small as you can keep it. If you could
keep all fires less than 300 acres, then, of course, we could
significantly reduce the dollars.
Now, we are never going to be able to do that, not with
drought and not with the situation we have with fuels. Our best
hope to ever do that is by treating fuels. In the long term,
there is hope that we could even significantly reduce the cost
even more.
So, then, our challenge is to look at that balance between
suppression costs and preparedness costs to make sure that we
have enough firefighters to do the initial attack, to keep
those fires small, but still make sure that we have enough
money to fight those large fires that we are going to have a
certain amount of.
There are differences of opinion about how much that ought
to be. For me, the important thing is to have some flexibility
to move funds back and forth between suppression and
preparedness because, again, it depends so much on what the
fire season looks like when you actually get closer to it. The
fiscal year 2003 authority provided us that opportunity for
2003. We will see how well that works this year. My expectation
is that that will help us get the right level of preparedness
and then still be able to do the job that we need in
suppression.
Senator Domenici. Well, you are saying that you want to try
to have fewer big fires.
Mr. Bosworth. That is right. We want fewer big fires
because that is where the cost and that is where the acres are.
Senator Domenici. Well, if you can do that, wonderful. We
will give you some kind of medal if you can do that.
PROCESS PREDICAMENT
Let me talk just a couple of minutes about the report on
process predicament. I thank you for reminding me of it. I will
review it. I am at fault for not having reviewed it if there
are things in there that we ought to be doing. You have stated
that you are going to be working to get at some of the
predicaments in the process that that study revealed. We ought
to be doing some of them if they are legislative. I hope we
will look at them collectively and see what we can do.
If there are any legislative changes in that that stand out
to you, I would hope you would call it to our attention. We,
too, have a responsibility to help you as you try to do that.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you. I would just like to respond very
quickly if I could. The process predicament write-up does not
give answers. It just kind of defines a problem. We are trying
to work together to develop the answers.
I would like to point out one thing that I have here since
we are talking about process predicament. The Lolo National
Forest had fires along with a lot of others in the year 2000.
They attempted then to do some work, to do some restoration and
rehabilitation. I would like to point out over here: This is an
environmental impact statement. This stack here, which is a
pretty good size stack of stuff--in order for them to do work
on 752 acres of soil stabilization, 224 miles of road
decommissioning--closing roads--2,172 acres of timber salvage,
2,377 acres of commercial thinning, and 12,900 acres of
reforestation--in order to do that work, it took this
environmental impact statement.
When we got the appeals, if you take this--we have the
appeal record. That box--12 of those boxes is what it took to
transfer the appeal record to the regional office from the
forest--12 of those boxes to do the work on one forest after
just one of the many, many fires that we had--to do some of the
work of restoration and rehabilitation. That is why I am so
focused on trying to deal with this process predicament. That
is just a huge problem for us.
Senator Domenici. Well, you know, we can just continue on
and complain, or we can try to do something like you are doing
and find some of the actual problems.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
I have a personal commitment to myself to try to establish
a presentable case for the use of the stewardship contracts. I
have a certain entity that I would like to convince in my State
that they are a good thing. To that end, I have the language of
the law. I wonder if you could have one of your staff just take
a couple of projects that have worked, even if they are small--
they do not have to be in my State, obviously--and just narrate
how they start, who gets involved, how it proceeds beyond that,
and how it ends up--being able to accomplish something
collectively that is contemplated by this new statute. Could
you do a couple of those for me, please?
Mr. Bosworth. I would be very happy to do that. I could
also make some people available to go through the whole process
of what they used. We have some people in my office now who
have actually done those, as forest supervisors, and who have
now transferred into my office. They would be happy to sit
down. They have done some projects that are very successful.
They had a huge amount of public support for them. We would be
happy to go through some of those examples.
Senator Domenici. If you could get me one in writing. If I
may--in New Mexico--want to ask you to send a couple of your
people with me to show some constituents how it is done. If I
could start with a written explanation, it would be extremely
helpful to me.
Mr. Bosworth. I will do that.
COUNTY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. I have about 8 or 10 questions I am going
to submit. One of which has to do with asking you whether you
will continue to handle the so-called county partnership
restoration program. Will you continue to work with the
counties? There are a number of those going. Some of them are
working. We do not want you to let up on that kind of
relationship. Could you just take a minute or so and talk about
that?
Mr. Bosworth. The way that we are going to get these jobs
done is through those kinds of partnerships. There are a number
of projects that I know of that folks are working on, where
county partnerships are working together, I think, in New
Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado.
Senator Domenici. Right. Lincoln is one, Apache----
Mr. Bosworth. Apache-Sitgraves is one, and then the San
Juan, I believe, is one.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Mr. Bosworth. Those folks are working together in that
partnership to move forward.
Now, we have not taken dollars off the top in my office and
sent funds to those places specifically. We are looking at what
kind of things we might be able to do in addition to help to
make it easier for them to do that.
Senator Domenici. The only thing we expect you to do is to
continue to push those and give your blessings to them so that
the people know they are for real and that you support them.
Mr. Bosworth. I am more than willing to put emphasis, to
talk it up, and to encourage the regions and the forests to
take the dollars that we are giving them, and to work them into
those partnership areas.
The only thing I am reluctant to do--I am trying not to do
very much of--is take dollars off the top here. I want to get
as much money out as I can without me taking it off the top.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Mr. Bosworth. So we have reduced that significantly, but
boy--I am willing to do all the rest of that.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Yes, sir.
WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
Would you put the last chart that you had up there, sir,
please? I have a question regarding it. That is a very, very
compelling chart that you have up there. I would just like to
know--up there in the big blue circle where you do your circle
irrigation up there--that is what it looks like, does it not?
Mr. Bosworth. It does.
Senator Burns. How many of those big fires started--or had
their origination--started in your wildland-urban interface
areas? Would you have any idea? Have you ever looked at that?
Mr. Bosworth. We can get some information on that. I could
not tell you just offhand. I am sitting here trying to decide--
what I was pausing about was whether or not, in my view, most
of those would be in sort of roaded areas versus the
backcountry kind of areas. I just do not know. I would have to
do some work, particularly--and we can do that. I mean, I think
you can get the information. We will see what we can find and
at least figure out whether they are in the wildland-urban
interface or whether they are in roaded versus unroaded areas.
Senator Burns. And along with what Senator Domenici had to
say, it would be good if we could do some kind of a white
paper. He wants some concrete information that he can take to
his communities in New Mexico as far as stewardship is
concerned and how those are working.
We also should take a look and see what changes we would
have to make in the law to facilitate both what we are trying
to do on the forest, and also take a look and see where the
objections are--how we address those objections or those
questions by people who would file these appeals--because, no
doubt, some of those appeals have a legitimate basis. How do we
address those in certain circumstances in order to deal with an
isolated case? That would help us up here.
Mr. Bosworth. That is part of--that is what the Healthy
Forests Initiative wants to do in large part as well.
Senator Burns. That is right.
Mr. Bosworth. So that is why that proposal is out there.
Senator Burns. Okay. Well, we sure appreciate your work on
that.
Senator Stevens, welcome to the committee this morning, the
chairman of the full committee. We look forward to your--if you
have a statement you may put it in the record.
TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT
Senator Stevens. No, I do not have a statement, Mr.
Chairman. We have four subcommittee meetings this morning. I am
trying to go to each one. I am sorry to be late here, Mr.
Bosworth. I have great interest in the Forest Service, as you
know. We recently had to put a provision in the law to assure
that the Tongass Timber Reform Act concept was finally approved
in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). I hope that you
will have no difficulty with that.
Mr. Bosworth. Not at all.
Senator Stevens. Are you all going to be able to observe
that provision of the law?
Mr. Bosworth. We are going to make every effort to do that,
yes, I believe so.
Senator Stevens. I have lived now through too many
agreements with people over what happens in Alaska. One of them
was in the Tongass Timber Reform Act. It was the third in a
series of agreements we had to reach in order to continue
Forest Service operations in Alaska, and harvesting timber. It
has now been held up, as you know, for about 12 years or more.
I hope that we will go ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I am thinking about offering a provision that
says anyone who challenges those plans must pay the loss of
income to the people who have suffered by the delay--if they
suffered--if they prevent going ahead now with the contracts
that have been in place for so long, as far as harvesting
Alaska timber.
These people, who are just professional protesters in the
legal profession, do nothing but file lawsuits in order to
raise more money. The contributions go to a foundation they
form themselves. They pay themselves and they have no downside
when they lose. I think we have got to find some way to prevent
people from holding up the harvesting of timber under a plan
such as--I do not know if you know it--I opposed TLMP when it
first came out. By the time it has gone through 12 years, I
have no alternative but to support it.
I do hope we can find some way to make certain it goes--I
notice from your resume you never served in Alaska, Mr.
Bosworth.
Mr. Bosworth. I have never served in Alaska. I have been in
a number of regions. I have been to Alaska a number of times. I
spent a week there last year trying to gain a better
understanding of the issues. There are some real challenges
there. There are also some very good--we have some very good
employees there. They are working hard.
Senator Stevens. Well, we would invite you to come up,
because, you know, some things that may work elsewhere, such as
backfires and other things, can really cause holocausts in our
State. I think it takes someone with firm professional
experience to oversee operations on a day-to-day basis up
there.
BEETLE KILL ON THE KENAI PENINSULA
I went with Senator Domenici when they had those terrible
fires out in his area. I could hardly believe them. We have
now--I am told we have over 3 million acres of beetle kill on
Federal lands that are in the vicinity of our major city of
Anchorage, and coming up--that is the Kenai Peninsula, up
towards the Matanuska Valley in Alaska. The beetle kill is
substantial.
I hope that under the President's new program that we can
take some steps to try to thin out some of those dead trees so
they do not provide the fuel for fires such as we have had
before in that area. Beetle kill--I have flown over the forests
when they are burning. The sinuosity of the fire follows the
dead trees in our area. They just end up by consuming an
enormous acreage of forest because the trees that are dead,
because of the infestation, have not been removed.
I hope you will look at a plan to try and remove some of
those dead trees.
Mr. Bosworth. Actually, when I was up visiting there last
summer, I did get up in the Kenai. I did look at some of the
area where the spruce is dead. It is a huge problem. I
certainly agree with you. A lot of that is private land. Some
of that is national forest. We are working through our State
and Private Forestry program with private landowners. We are
then trying to do as much as we can on the national forest as
well.
One of the successful programs I think also is the FIREWISE
program there on the Kenai. We are working with those folks,
the actual homeowners, helping them find ways that they can
make their homes safer from fire. I appreciate your support and
your attention on that.
ALASKA JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS
Senator Stevens. You are right, it is a checkerboard of
Federal ownership. Part of it is a wildlife refuge, for
instance, and the forest surrounds that. The wildlife refuge
was actually carved out of national forest lands in the past.
There are enormous problems jurisdictionally between the two
Federal agencies in determining how to deal with fires in the
peninsula. In the final analysis, you know, we have less than 2
percent of our land in private ownership. It is all surrounded
by Federal or State land. If Federal and State people do not
fight their fires, the people who suffer the most are the
people who have the inholdings, so to speak, that are involved
in those areas of heavy forestation.
Southeastern Alaska, I am sure you saw, because of its
rainfall, does not have as much difficulty. But it has been
drier this year, too. We are going to have enormous fires if we
do not get prepared for them.
Mr. Bosworth. Again, my belief is that the solution is both
fuels treatment and working together between State, Federal,
local jurisdictions, and working with homeowners. We can do
that by working together to make a big difference. That is an
important part of the National Fire Plan.
ALASKA FOREST TRIP BY AIR
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, once in the past I got the
cooperation of the Department of Defense. We took one of the
enormous passenger planes from the military. We went through
the forested area of our State. We had helicopters and National
Guard standing by to take people, Senators and staff, out to
look at these areas of really great risk to everybody. That is
15 years ago now. I am not sure there are many people around
here that made that trip.
I would like to suggest to you that we try to organize a
trip to go up there. It only takes a weekend, really. I think
we should go up. We should ask Mr. Bosworth and some of his
staff to go along. You just have to view it in totality. These
are the two largest forests in the United States. Beyond that
are millions of acres of forestland that is owned by the
Federal Government. There is just not proper stewardship of
handling the problem of infestation of the timber in
particular.
I do not want to belabor it. I urge you to think about it.
I think that is a fantastic legacy for the future. I think the
day will come when we will be compelled to resume harvesting
that timber. We could have harvested that timber on a 103-,
104-year cutting cycle, using only 10 percent of the forest,
and supplied better than 450 million board feet forever. That
has been challenged and cut back. As you know, we are down now
last year to 34 million board feet.
The year that I came to the Senate, the harvest was 1.5
billion board feet. We still only cut--in the history of man,
we have cut 3 percent of the forest. It does not make any sense
what happened. I think more people in the Senate, and more of
your people, need to be exposed to the whole of the totality of
forest areas in Alaska in order to make sure we have a sound
policy.
I appreciate what you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming by. I
noted, Senator, that he said he had spent 1 week up there last
year in your forest. I spent 1 night up there that turned into
1 week.
You know how that is. He raises a very legitimate question,
though, I will tell you that.
NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
There are a couple of things I want to ask you about, and
then--forest plans, money to--we understand that they are
incredibly costly, to do forest plans. Are you on schedule to
do, redo forest plans--we have some coming up, I understand--
especially when it has taken us 5 to 6 years to prepare one of
those things. How are we on that schedule of redoing some of
the forest plans?
Mr. Bosworth. We are behind in terms of--you know--we are
supposed to have our plans done--they are supposed to be
revised every 10 to 15 years, 15 being the outside. We have a
number of forest plans that are 15 years and beyond.
The important thing, I think, is our attempt to update the
planning rule and, frankly, to modernize the planning rule. The
way it has been--the last time it was done was back in the
early 1980s and then, of course, in 2000. The problem with the
2000 planning rule is that it would cost us an estimated $12
million per forest plan to do a revision. It would take several
years--I mean, probably more than what it has taken under the
old rule. It is my strong desire to get the timeframe down to
just a couple of years.
I also have a belief that the only people that can be
involved in forest planning, when it takes you 8 or 9 years,
are those who are being paid to be involved. But the person who
just cares--the person who likes to go hunting or fishing, or
the person who wants to go camping--they cannot stay with it
for 8 years and work with us for 8 years along with everybody
else. So if we really want to work with the public in a
collaborative way on how their forests are going to be managed,
we have to get that timeframe down to just 2 years or 3 at the
max.
That is what our proposed planning rule would do, I am
hoping and expecting. If it does, then I think we can make a
huge difference, reduce costs, and get caught up.
Senator Burns. The same thing on grazing permits?
RANGE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Bosworth. In the 2004 President's budget we are
increasing the amount for Range that would--I will have Hank
give you the dollars--that would increase the number of
allotments that we could get under NEPA by about 30 percent, I
believe. Can you give him the figures specifically, Hank?
Mr. Kashdan. Yes.
Senator Burns. Turn your microphone around there, Henry.
Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, the grazing increase of $7.3
million, compared to the President's budget, would enable us to
do 33 percent more allotments and get them under decision
notices than we had been able to do in 2002. You would still
continue to have the backlog issues.
Senator Burns. You still would, okay. That goes hand in
hand, I think, with the forest plans and the grazing permits.
All this is linked together, the invasive weeds, these forest
plans, grazing permits.
NOXIOUS WEEDS MANAGEMENT
Now, if you think just getting rid of weeds, that helps,
especially in sheep. Now, cattle not so much. The cows will not
eat that stuff. Sheep will. Doing these grazing permits is
very, very important not only from a weed standpoint, but also
in our fire management.
Where we had grazing, we do not have those really hot
fires. That excess grass and undergrowth is--and sheep browse--
that is all taken away. It is part of fuels reduction. It does
not hurt the land. We can do that--not using tax dollars--to
remove some of those undesirable things that we think that are
on our forests--such as weed management--and that costs--and
also fuels reduction.
There are some natural harvesters out here that will help
us manage our forests. I do not know why we are not using those
tools. Any other person who is in charge of managing--just like
I said: The old equation of sun, water, and soil--and using
those resources--and knowing how to use those resources.
Now, does it work on every forest? No, it does not. That is
why we cannot write a law that one size fits everything. It
just does not. There are circumstances. There are growing
seasons. There are variables in moisture, a lot of variables,
that we have to take into account. It takes a really
experienced person to understand what forest I am managing and
what practices work, and what practices do not work. That is
why it just has to happen that way.
You can take every ranch in the State of Montana--and Dale,
you know this as well as anybody else--and no two ranches are
alike. They may lie right next to one another. How you manage
it; how you take care of it; how you make it produce--but I
will tell you, I bet the guy that has lived there for a
generation-and-a-half or two generations--they know how to
manage it. The next guy comes by and he buys it--he changes
everything--he learns pretty quick--some things work and some
things do not work.
By the way, I called the Park Service up. I had a way to
get that guy on that John Deere tractor out of that puddle but
they did not take my advice down there.
Just comment on that, then. I think those issues really
link together. I would help us to complete as much of this as
we can. That really enables us to deal with some of the
problems we have, this management problem.
LEAFY SPURGE
Mr. Bosworth. I would like to say something, first, about
leafy spurge up there. I did not respond to it when Senator
Dorgan was here. I know what leafy spurge is. It is a huge
problem. Springtime, as you know--it will have yellow flowers
on it. Most leafy spurge that has been there for a while will
have a root system that is 20 and 30 feet deep.
Senator Burns. That is right.
Mr. Bosworth. You cannot pull it out when it is 20 or 30
feet deep. You can pull it and break it but it just pops right
back up again. You can do some things with grazing. Both goats
and sheep will eat it. We have even tried in some places to
contract with goats to pay, in other words, to graze, to try to
eradicate leafy spurge.
We are also making some progress on leafy spurge with
wasps, the bugs that are natural enemies to it.
Senator Burns. Doing work at Sidney, Montana.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, that is correct, and at a couple of
other places along the Smith River we are working with it, too.
INVASIVE SPECIES
I will tell you, I am so convinced that invasive species--
which would be insects, diseases, and weeds--are probably one
of the biggest threats to our national forests and grasslands
that there is, and not just to the national forests but the
Nation's forests and grasslands. I mean, it is a huge problem.
Our country spends a lot of money every year trying to deal
with invasive species--either insects, diseases, or weeds--and
I will be very happy to work with you to try to improve our
program and to do it better. But it has to be integrated, like
you say.
Senator Burns. Right.
Mr. Bosworth. When we have fires, when we have wildfires,
we end up with a spread of--knapweed, for example, in the
Bitterroot Valley. After those fires, we just had bumper crops
of----
Senator Burns. Knap.
Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. Of knapweed, yes. That is one of
the problems that you have in many places in the West now. When
we have fire, whether it is a prescribed burn or whether it is
a natural fire, we have got to be doing something about weeds
right after the fire because there are so many of them.
But again, to me it is essential that this be integrated
between the fire, between the insects, between the diseases,
between the weeds, and that our management work on all parts of
those together. It is critical.
Senator Burns. I do not know whether you have had the
opportunity to visit with Packy Burns yet--no relation--no
relation. She lives at Big Timber. They run sheep in the Big
Timber area. She contracts out to private lands and also
permittees. She takes her bands of sheep wherever she is
contracted. They pay her to come in and do it.
Mr. Bosworth. No, I have not met her.
Senator Burns. Well, you ought to meet her. She is a very
interesting woman and, of course, I knew her old father-in-law
many years ago. He had sheep and cattle in the big sheep and
timber area. We used to do a lot of business in Sweet Grass
County.
We thank you for your testimony today. I just want to say
publicly, I remember that when you came to this office I had
the feeling that we made the right choice, that the President
made the right choice to put you in charge of the Forest
Service. You sure have not been a disappointment. I just want
to congratulate you on the work that you are doing.
We are not going to agree on everything. No people do.
Differences of opinion are what make the country go. Generally,
though, when I talk to your people who are on the ground,
morale is very good. You are to be complimented on putting some
people around the forests. I think that are doing as good a job
as they can possibly do under the conditions they have to do
them.
So thank you for coming this morning. We are willing to
work with you on funding those areas--that white paper on what
we can do on stewardship, how we make it work, and how we make
it work for everybody in America. Thank you for coming this
morning.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, and thank you for those comments.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Pete Domenici
county partnership restoration
Question. Chief Bosworth, I know that last year you made efforts to
ensure the Lincoln, Apache-Sitgreaves, and GMUG National Forest
received funding to work with County Partner Restoration Projects to
help reduce hazardous fuels loads in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
I am told that last year, before you had to pull back funding to
pay for fiscal year 2002 fire fighting, that about $1 million was
slated to be expended on these three forests for this type of work. How
much funding should we anticipate will be slated for these three
forests this year?
Answer. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels, Forest
Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County Partner
Restoration projects for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-
Lincoln NF Seagraves GMUG NF's Total by
NF BLI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Fuels............................................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) $90,000 $90,000
Forest Health............................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 33,000 33,000
Veg/Watershed............................................... $330,000 $305,000 ( \1\ ) 635,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total by Forest....................................... 330,000 305,000 123,000 758,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None.
deferred maintenance
Question. Chief Bosworth, I note Deferred Maintenance/
Infrastructure Improvements is down $50.9 Million from the fiscal year
2003 request of $50.9 Million. In fiscal year 2002 we funded this line
Item at $61 Million.
With your current budget, are you able to fully manage and maintain
the ecosystem health of the lands that are already entrusted to the
Forest Service? Please provide a yes or no answer?
Answer. No. However, the Agency's efforts will be to focus on the
critical high priority work. Limited resources and combined with a
multitude of resource management issues at the ecosystem level on the
191 million acre National Forest System requires the careful balancing
of funding priorities reflected in the fiscal year 2004 Budget. Within
the Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, the focus is
on addressing the critical deferred maintenance health & safety items
deferred maintenance backlog.
Question. Specifically, which programs will not be funded at
amounts called for in the Forest Plans, as a result of the fiscal year
2004 budget request?
Answer. Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (or Forest Plans)
do not identify specific funding needs for an individual program in a
given year. Forest Plans are the result of completing the middle-level
of the agency's 3-tiered planning process. They are programmatic
documents that tier from the agency's strategic plan and establish a
framework for identifying, planning and implementing projects designed
to achieve Forest and agency objectives.
Program funding needs for a fiscal year are determined based on a
combination of factors, including the results of project level planning
within each program. The agency identifies various combinations of
programmatic needs in its budget submission that are designed to
address different sets of goals, objectives, and budget constraints.
Reduced funding in any program will result in less work being
accomplished on the ground and potentially lengthen the time it takes
Forests to achieve their Plan objectives and the agency to achieve its
strategic objectives.
Question. I also note that there are a significant number of insect
and disease outbreaks that are not being sanitized or salvaged. Would
you provide me an explanation of the relative priority given to
treating these outbreaks as compared to completing deferred
maintenance?
Answer. The President's Budget provides a balanced program to meet
forest health protection and deferred maintenance/infrastructure
improvement needs.
vibrant forest and range based economy
Question. Give me a list of the legislative changes that you need
to ensure you can implement the National Fire Plan, not only in a safe
and effective manner but also in a manner that is environmentally
acceptable?
Answer. If Healthy Forest legislation is enacted, we don't
anticipate a need for other legislative action. We are in the process
of establishing and implementing several Healthy Forest related
administrative actions that will enable the Forest Service to safely
and more effectively implement the National Fire Plan. We will keep you
informed of any change in circumstances.
fire preparedness
Question. Chief, a couple of weeks ago you testified to the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee that you expect to be able to put out
98 percent of the fires that start in fiscal year 2004. I am wondering
how you will accomplish this with half as many fire fighters as you had
in 2002?
Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the
first year of the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds
for one-time purchases of heavy equipment including engines and dozers
to reach a maximal readiness level. While of that equipment will have
to be replaced someday, annual investments needs not be maintained at
the 2001 level.
In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than
ever. Ninety-nine percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands
were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal
year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal year 2003 request.
Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the
agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being
positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources
will be moved throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is
another severe fire season, the fire program has the flexibility to
augment Preparedness funding with ``severity'' funds from the
suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources in
the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain
sufficient readiness and initial attack capability.
Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from
escaping to levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires
become large, the costs to contain them become large as well. The rise
in the 10-year average recognizes the long-term trend in fire frequency
and severity. Even so, even that increase falls below the costs of the
past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level
based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted
given what we know today.
I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose
of attaining preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002.
The following table displays a comparison of what we plan to provide in
fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Resource type -------------------------- 2003
2002 actual 2003 base planned
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters..................... 10,480 6,008 10,480
Prevention Techs................. 403 296 332
Engines.......................... 995 700 1,072
Forest Helicopters............... 75 57 87
National Helicopters............. 7 8 8
Smokejumpers..................... 277 277 277
Type I Crews..................... 65 65 65
Airtankers....................... 41 33 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I also see that you have grounded 11 heavy slurry bombers
and 11 of 19 of your Beech Craft lead planes. Half as many fire
fighters, half your lead planes gone, and quarter of your slurry
bombers out of commission. Please provide specific steps that you have
taken to make up the 50 percent reduction in fire fighters and the
grounding of these aircraft?
Answer. We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers
but feel we have several alternatives available to us that will
mitigate the effect of losing this capability. In our 2003 Fire
Operations planning we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the
emphasis of the airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large
fire support. We will shift suppression tactics from those that require
close air support to those that do not require such close support
(direct fireline construction versus more indirect). This may cause a
marginal increase in total burned acres but not enough to be
significant. We will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant
capability to help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will
add as many as 11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local
initial attack. In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to
effectively suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned
acres, and program costs.
stewardship contracting
Question. Chief, you advocated for stewardship contracting while
you were in Region One. Can you tell us how that worked in Region One
and how you see using Stewardship Contracting in New Mexico?
Specifically, what type of projects are you thinking about implementing
in New Mexico under this program?
Answer. The demonstration pilot authority for stewardship
contracting in the Northern Region (Region 1) has shown that some
projects are better able to get needed work done in an area than what
could be accomplished using a timber sale.
In the Southwestern Region (Region 3), the Cibola National Forest
is currently working on an existing stewardship contract on the Mt.
Taylor Ranger District, and has also started to work on a new one using
the new authorities on the Mountainair Ranger District. The Mt. Taylor
Ranger District is also working on a new environmental impact statement
that is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004 and is currently
planned to be implemented through a stewardship contract. In addition,
the Lincoln National Forest and the Santa Fe National Forest have
stewardship contracts that will be completed by the end of the current
calendar year. All the National Forests in New Mexico are looking at
stewardship contracting opportunities and are interested in completing
projects with this new authority.
insects and disease
Question. As you know we have a large area of forest that is being
devastated by bark beetles in Northern New Mexico. This has been on
going for several years and is likely to continue and spread due to the
drought.
Can you tell me the specific steps the National Forests in New
Mexico are taking to combat these insects and stop the spread of the
outbreaks?
Answer. Severe drought conditions and overcrowding have weakened
many trees in New Mexico, including those on the National Forests.
These weakened trees are now being attacked and killed by native bark
beetles. Pinon and ponderosa pines are most severely affected. Large
scale control measures to stop the beetle outbreaks are not feasible.
However, spraying of 55 high-value trees to protect them from attack
was completed in two campgrounds on the Santa Fe National Forest in
March 2003. Thinning to enhance tree vigor is planned for those and
several additional developed recreation sites on the Santa Fe National
Forest. The thinning is scheduled to begin in the fall, when cutting
activities are less likely to attract bark beetles. Thinning currently
underway on the Santa Fe Watershed includes mastication, or shredding,
of woody debris, rendering it unsuitable for bark beetle breeding. A
pine bark beetle strategic communication plan is being utilized to
provide the public with information about bark beetle activity,
management, and impacts. A bark beetle website has been developed to
provide information online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/
index.shtml
Information has been provided in the form of presentations to
adults and children, in articles, responses to phone and internet
questions, and dissemination of literature. An informal interagency
bark beetle meeting was held at the FS Southwestern Regional Office on
June 24, 2003 to discuss bark beetle impacts and explore opportunities
for information-sharing and coordination. In attendance were
representatives from the Forest Service, the BLM, the BIA, and the NM
State Forestry Division. A follow-up meeting is planned. The
Southwestern Region is participating in a Forest Service interregional
pinon mortality assessment which includes supplemental aerial surveys
of pinon-juniper woodlands over about 2 million acres in NM. Ground
crews will also be collecting field data. Surveyed lands will be across
all ownerships and will cover about 22 percent of the pinon-juniper
woodlands which exist in New Mexico. The Forest Service solicited input
from State and federal agencies to delineate priority areas of private
and public lands to be surveyed. Traps to monitor the pinon ips spring
emergence, number of generations produced per year, and onset of
hibernation have been placed in six locations across New Mexico to aid
in our understanding of this insect's behavior.
Question. Also specifically, what steps you are taking on each
forest to remove this dead timber before it provides the fuel for
another catastrophic fire?
Answer. The mortality in northern New Mexico is primarily occurring
in pinyon pine in the pinyon-juniper woodlands. This mortality is at
the higher elevations, and is quite scattered. Because most of the
mortality is pinyon pine, very little salvage is occurring, aside from
firewood gathering. Most Forests do treat areas where personal use
firewood gathering occurs, but they are not planning on doing any
large-scale salvage to combat bark beetle outbreaks. All Forests are
continuing to encourage salvage removal where trees are accessible.
Some thinning is occurring around Las Alamos using FEMA fuels reduction
dollars. The state also has a fuels reduction program on private lands,
where most of the pinyon pine mortality has occurred. However, pinyon
pine infected by the ips beetle decomposes rapidly, and after one
season is no longer useful as fuelwood.
As long as the dead needles remain on the trees, there is an
increased risk of fire ignition. However, once the needles fall, the
fire hazard for defoliated standing dead trees is less than for
standing green trees. Needle fall can take as little as 6 months in
pinyon pine or as much as 2 years in ponderosa pine. The only way a
fire in a pinyon-juniper stand will advance is with a sustained stiff
wind, because many of the high mortality sites have almost no
understory vegetation and are quite rocky.
Forests have begun using the new timber salvage categorical
exclusion authority so that our removal efforts can be focused in a
timely manner to remove the material that is still useful. This
authority allows Ranger Districts to treat larger areas and create
effective barriers at key points on the Forest.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. Last year's fires were not helped by the fact that
Colorado and much of the West was and still is experiencing the worst
drought on record. As you know, catastrophic wildfires can have
catastrophic effects on watersheds where communities located below the
National Forest boundary get their water. Many communities are
concerned about the threat of ash and sediment from wildfires clogging
their ditches, reservoirs, and drinking water intakes in the middle of
this drought.
I would be interested to learn a little more about how the Forest
Service is working with local communities to guard against future water
contamination due to fires, as well as what they are doing now to
rehabilitate those affected watersheds. I'm sure that the Forest
Service really appreciates the effects fire has on existing municipal
water supplies and is willing to work with the state.
Answer. Prevention.--The agency's first efforts are directed
towards reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire occurrence. The
National Fire Plan and the President's Healthy Forests Initiative
provide the agency with strategic guidance for implementing this goal.
In close cooperation with the Department of Interior, states, local
governments, and communities, the Forest Service is working to reduce
hazardous fuels accumulation, and to manage wildland/urban interface
forests to be more resistant to catastrophic wildfires. In spite of a
very challenging fire suppression season, the Forest Service reduced
hazardous fuels on 1.3 million acres in fiscal year 2002.
Stabilization.--Before a catastrophic wildfire has been
extinguished, the agency quickly mobilizes Burned Area Emergency
Response (BAER) teams to assess environmental degradation. Water
quality and flood potential are prime considerations. The team
establishes objectives for protecting water resources and prescribes
needed actions. Treatments may continue up to a year after the fire,
and monitoring of affected watersheds continue for up to three years.
In 2002, the Forest Service conducted 130 BAER assessments,
authorizing $70 million of emergency stabilization work. $47.7 million
was obligated in fiscal year 2002. These projects will treat 136,000
acres of severely burned land, of which about 90,000 acres were treated
before the winter snows. Typical emergency actions include stabilizing
slopes with log structures, straw wattles, and straw mulch, installing
larger culverts to handle increased water flows, and seeding burned
areas. Communities are protected from flood by installation of flood
warning systems and construction of impoundments to reduce peak flows.
The Hayman Fire stabilization work illustrates the types of
accomplishments achieved through BAER team efforts. Hayman Fire BAER
treatments cost $24 million of the $70 million authorized in fiscal
year 2002, resulting in the following accomplishments:
assessment of threat
Sedimentation of a major water supply reservoir: Post fire erosion
into Cheesman Reservoir may exceed 1 million tons in the first year if
storms of 1 inch per day occur.
establishment of emergency treatment objective
Reduce impacts to the Denver water supply reservoirs and the water
quality-listed streams.
Reduce erosion by establishing ground cover and increasing
infiltration by scarifying the soil surface.
Hayman BAER treatments in this emergency phase have been aimed at
re-establishing the vegetative cover lost in the fire. Ground cover
holds the soil in place, allows absorption of water into the ground,
minimizes runoff, reproduces wildlife habitat and generally rejuvenates
the area. Often, soils in fire areas where high intensity burn occurs
become water repellent, and the hardened surface must be broken up by
scarification, or raking, as part of the treatment.
aerial operations
Application of hydro-mulch (recycled wood fiber, grass seed, water
and a binding agent) has been applied via helicopter on 1,569 acres of
heavily burned slope. This work was completed in September 2002.
Aerial seeding is complete on over 19,835 acres. The seed mix is an
annual cereal rye mixture, which will germinate readily and persist for
two to three years to provide ground cover until the native grasses and
forbs come back.
Approximately 6,000 acres have been treated as part of an aerial
dry mulching project (applying straw to burned slopes via helicopter)
during September 2002. Straw is applied over previously seeded areas.
The straw helps to minimize erosion during rains, and provides
necessary moisture and shade for quicker seed germination.
ground operations
Seeding and scarification (raking the soil) has been completed on
13,800 acres.
Hydro-mulch is being applied by truck to 1,500 acres along Forest
Roads and highways, 300 feet on either side of 25 miles of designated
roads. Work was completed in October 2002.
Many private landowners in the burn area have been contacted to
assess risks from adjacent National Forest lands. BAER is working with
Natural Resource Conservation Service to formulate and implement
rehabilitation plans with landowners.
Culverts and stream crossings within the burn area are being
cleaned and reinforced to prevent washout along roads. Grading and
reconditioning of the roads within the fire area is ongoing.
The Lake George Community Park has been demobilized, and the
grounds within and around the camp are being rehabilitated. The roads
at the Lake George Community Park have been graded and reconditioned.
The area used for the fire camp is being seeded and straw mulch is
being applied. The park has been reopened for public use.
Treatment of noxious weeds is complete on 340 acres within and
adjacent to the fire area.
An archaeological assessment and clearance of all areas where BAER
treatment will create ground disturbance has been achieved. Two sites
within the fire area were identified as needing protection using straw-
bale check-dams, which have been completed.
Remote Area Weather Stations (RAWS) have been installed in and
around the fire area. This will facilitate early detection of rainfall
for public evacuation and emergency warnings when needed.
Additional details on accomplishments at the Hayman fire are
available at www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/hayres/baer/index.htm.
Rehabilitation.--Efforts to repair damage caused by the fire begins
as soon as the fire is out, and focus on lands unlikely to quickly
recover from fire damage through natural processes. In fiscal year
2002, the Forest Service implemented 518 projects costing $35.8
million. These projects treated 435,000 acres of severely burned land
through invasive plant control, seeding, planting, and watershed
improvements on federal lands. Additional work was accomplished on
trail reconstruction, roadwork, riparian enhancement, fencing and
boundary line location.
Communities are included in rehabilitation efforts. In June 2002,
the Hayman Recovery Assistance Center (HayRAC) was established in
Castle Rock, to aid victims of the Hayman Fire. This recovery
assistance center provided representatives from state, federal and non-
profit agencies who provided information on financial, logistical,
human services, and fire rehabilitation techniques to citizens and
businesses directly impacted by the Hayman Fire. The center served as a
central source of information during and after the fire, providing a
mechanism to coordinate interagency restoration and recovery efforts
with the community, collaborating on short and long-term restoration
needs, and coordination and facilitating volunteer programs to support
community and forest restoration efforts. In 2002, HayRAC coordinated
55 volunteer projects, with more than 3,000 volunteers, for about
22,000 volunteer hours, and responded to about 1,600 phone calls for
fire recovery assistance.
Question. Recognizing the drought conditions that the West, in
particular, is facing, I think that it is more important than ever for
the Forest Service to commit to work with the states in good faith on
water issues. Unfortunately, some in the Forest Service have tried to
impose bypass flows in our national forests, and circumvent working
through state instream flow programs. You are aware that bypass flows
are estimated to cause a reduction in the dry-year water supplies
available from water facilities on National Forest lands by 50 to 80
percent?
Answer. There are numerous permitted water storage and transmission
facilities on National Forest lands in the west. Some of these
authorizations have clauses that allow for temporary changes to
authorization conditions during times of drought or emergency. Prior to
last year these drought clauses had generally not been invoked, and
many were undefined. In 2002, we worked actively with Denver Water, and
others to modify authorization terms and conditions to allow for needed
flexibility in operation during the drought. We will continue to work
with facility managers and water providers in 2003 to meet changing
storage and operation needs that have resulted from the drought.
Question. Isn't the Forest Service's official policy to work with
the states, pursuant to state law in administering water? Can I tell
city officials in Colorado, as well as farmers and ranchers, that you,
and the Forest Service in general, are committed to working through the
state instream flow program and eliminating the perception of threats
to existing water supplies by imposing bypass flows?
Answer. The Forest Service has, and will continue, to work with
states, tribal governments, water users, and any interested parties in
resolving water issues on National Forest System lands in accordance
with both federal and state laws. The State of Colorado's instream flow
program falls short of meeting the needs of the United States in the
matter of in-stream flow protection for federal purposes, such as, but
not limited to, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and habitat
for aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In other
western states, the Forest Service does participate in state in-stream
flow programs where its water needs can be met with reasonable legal
certainty. The Forest Service has been very judicious about requiring
instream flow conditions in its land use occupancy permits and
easements, and will continue to unilaterally require bypass flows as a
last resort when other options to sustain aquatic resource values have
failed.
Question. Colorado experienced its worst fire season on record last
summer. My compliments go to the brave men and women who risked their
lives to fight these fires. We also learned some lessons last summer
and maybe you can tell me what adjustments we are making in
anticipation of this year's fire season.
Particularly, how do we use our local resources in suppression
operations?
Answer. We use predictive services and monitor local conditions to
adjust resource locations so that new starts can be suppressed quickly.
If we can respond to these new starts and suppress them within 24
hours, we can minimize their cost. Wildland fires that resist
suppression efforts typically transition from a small, inexpensive
event to something larger and more expensive within the first 24-48
hours of the event start. We emphasize and concentrate on aggressive
initial attack to minimize large fire occurrence. It's not a question
of what we can do better during the first 72 hours of an event. Our
firefighters are very successful in initial attack. During the fiscal
year 2002 fire season, they caught more than 99 percent of all
unplanned and unwanted wildland fires during initial attack. What we
need to do is continue to support the initial attack force by
maintaining training curriculums, providing quality equipment, develop
the lessons learned program, and maintaining coordination and
intelligence systems.
Question. How do we follow up with our communities to make sure we
are reducing the risk?
Answer. Local project managers carry out project monitoring.
Project plans for treatments on National Forest lands adjacent to
communities typically include specific objectives for addressing risk
to the community. Appropriate project follow up includes assessment of
how well project objectives have been met. Such project monitoring is
the responsibility of the District Ranger. Federal financial and
technical assistance, provided in conjunction with the efforts of State
Foresters and other state, local, or tribal governments, will be
increasingly focused upon the optimal reduction of the risk posed by
catastrophic wildfires, particularly in the wildland-urban interface.
In these efforts, communities, non-government organizations, and
private landowners also have a key responsibility. In most cases such
projects are developed using project planning standards similar to
those used by the Federal agencies. Project plans establish risk
reduction objectives. Federal agency grant administration includes spot
reviews of projects to establish effectiveness of projects delivered by
State Foresters or other grant recipients. Success may be judged by a
measured change in the vegetation condition class or by simply a
reduction from a high risk ranking to a moderate or low risk based on
the rating system applied for the area.
Question. One other thing, with the drought and the forest
conditions what can we do better during the first 72 hours of a fire?
Answer. After the 2002 fire season, the Forest Service reviewed
lessons learned, after action assessments, and formal program reviews
to develop new direction, clarify existing direction, and communicate
expectations of line officers and Incident Commanders. These
considerations manifested themselves in a Fire and Aviation Operations
Action Plan for the 2003 fire season. This plan emphasizes four areas
(Preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuel treatment, and safety)
of the Fire and Aviation Management program where I expect improved
performance from the line officers, Incident Commanders, and other
personnel involved in the conduct of operations in these areas. The
plan seeks to improve fiscal integrity and reflects important
performance measures.
Specific to your question, initial attack and extended attack are
the number one mobilization priority. We will continue to use
predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position protection
resources to those local areas that may need additional resources. Our
first priority will be to maintain sufficient local initial attack
resources to maximize our ability to staff new fire starts. Our second
priority will be large fire support. These actions will continue to
allow us to minimize the number of fires that grow large and require a
larger response.
Question. I wanted to mention to you the National Forest County
Partnership Restoration program. This pilot program is an example of
how restoration programs can be led by communities as Congress had
requested.
As I understand it from the restoration program that serves the
area I live in down in southwestern Colorado, funding for the three
partnerships that were created has not reached those who need it.
Could you give me your views on this program and what is being done
to fund it?
Answer. The Forest Service supports the collaborative approach in
the development of restoration programs. Funding for restoration
programs should be developed through the normal budget process.
This program involves a total of three forests, two forests in R-3,
the Apache-Sitgreaves NF in AZ and the Lincoln NF in NM, and one forest
in R-2, the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) NF in CO. The
program is a multi-year collaborative partnership between the Forest
Service and County governments for large-scale landscape restoration
utilizing an adaptive management process. It will test streamlined
processes in administration, contracting, planning and inter-agency
cooperation with an idea toward national application of the model
In fiscal year 2002 each forest was allocated between $305,000 and
$330,000 in start up funding. Given the severity of the 2002 fire
season, not all of the funds were obligated, consistent with the
Chief's direction on deferring funds as a result of fire suppression
needs. The GMUG Forest received some of this funding in fiscal year
2003 as carryover, and the R-3 Forests received a 2nd year allocation
in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Fiscal year 2004 allocations for the CPR
program have not been finalized.
The three Forests and three Lead Counties have completed a Master
MOU for the CPR Program. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels,
Forest Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County
Partner Restoration projects for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-
Lincoln NF Seagraves GMUG NF's Total by
NF BLI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Fuels............................................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) $90,000 $90,000
Forest Health............................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 33,000 33,000
Veg/Watershed............................................... $330,000 $305,000 ( \1\ ) 635,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total by Forest....................................... 330,000 305,000 123,000 758,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
firefighters
Question. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, much
of the West is expected to experience an above normal fire season. If
that turns out to be true, I'm concerned that the Forest Service would
be unable to handle 7 million acres of fire with the resources being
requested in this budget. Your Preparedness request of $610 million
would provide for 4,900 firefighters, which is 53 percent fewer than
the 10,480 you employed in fiscal year 2002; 465 fire engines, which is
53 percent fewer than the 995 you had in fiscal year 2002; and 48
helicopters, which is 49 percent fewer than the 94 that were available
in fiscal year 2002. It seems to me that the administration is
proposing to cut its firefighting capability in half, while at the same
time the fire experts are predicting an above normal fire season. How
does the administration square that incongruity? And what was the
dollar amount requested for Preparedness; both the request to the
Agriculture Department, and the department's request to the Office of
Management and Budget?
Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the
first year of the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds
for one-time purchases of heavy equipment including engines and dozers
to reach a maximal readiness level. While some of that equipment will
have to be replaced someday, annual investments needs not be maintained
at the 2001 level.
In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than
ever. Ninety-nine percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands
were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal
year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal year 2003 request.
Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the
agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being
positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources
will be moved throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is
another severe fire season, the fire program has the flexibility to
augment Preparedness funding with ``severity'' funds from the
suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources in
the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain
sufficient readiness and initial attack capability.
Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from
escaping to levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires
become large, the costs to contain them become large as well. The rise
in the 10-year average recognizes the long-term trend in fire frequency
and severity. Even so, even that increase falls below the costs of the
past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level
based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted
given what we know today.
I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose
of attaining preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002.
The following table displays a comparison of what we plan to provide in
fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Resource type -------------------------- 2003
2002 actual 2003 base planned
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters..................... 10,480 6,008 10,480
Prevention Techs................. 403 296 332
Engines.......................... 995 700 1,072
Forest Helicopters............... 75 57 87
National Helicopters............. 7 8 8
Smokejumpers..................... 277 277 277
Type I Crews..................... 65 65 65
Airtankers....................... 41 33 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers but feel
we have several alternatives available to us that will mitigate the
effect of losing this capability. In our 2003 Fire Operations planning
we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the emphasis of the
airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large fire support. We
will shift suppression tactics from those that require close air
support to those that do not require such close support (direct
fireline construction versus more indirect). This may cause a marginal
increase in total burned acres but not enough to be significant. We
will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant capability to
help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will add as many as
11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local initial attack.
In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to effectively
suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned acres, and
program costs.
fire funding
Question. In the past, there has been a fairly large gap between
what the administration requests each year for firefighting activities
and what the Congress eventually ends up having to appropriate. In the
mean time, the Forest Service is frequently forced to borrow money
until Congress and the President can agree to reimburse the agency for
its actual costs. That is not the best way to operate. In fact, the
Chief has been as suggesting the current system is ``absolutely
crazy,'' and that what's needed is a long-term solution. I know the
administration's request includes an additional $187 million for fire
suppression, but even with that money, you could easily be $600 million
short of what's actually needed. Nevertheless, as I read your prepared
statement, and as I look at the administration's budget, I don't see a
long-term fix proposed anywhere. Has the Forest Service actually
proposed a solution to the Agriculture Department, or to the Office of
Management and Budget? And if you have, would you please tell us what
you proposed, and why that proposal hasn't been sent to the Congress
for consideration?
Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget line item
structure for suppression is the same as previous years, the methods
used to calculate the suppression proposal is different from previous
years. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes the 10-year average of
total suppression costs adjusted for inflation, $604 million. As noted,
this is $187 million more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
is also $129 million greater than what would have been required if the
same method was used as in fiscal year 2003. The method used for fiscal
year 2004 provides a more realistic amount that decreases the
likelihood of having to transfer funds and should it be necessary to
transfer funds, the amount would be substantially less.
The Chief of the Forest Service has finalized direction for the
fiscal year 2003 fire season. The USDA Forest Service Fire & Aviation
Operations Action Plan (04/01/03) responds to lessons learned following
the 2002 fire season, and focuses attention on four critical areas:
preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuels treatments, and
safety--for both ground and aviation operations. A copy of the Action
Plan is attached.
The best long-term solution to reverse the increase in suppression
costs and eliminate annual transfers is to return the forests to their
natural fire regimes. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes the Healthy
Forest Initiative for this very reason. It is a tool to implement
effectively and efficiently core components of the National Fire Plan's
10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. A century of
well-intentioned but misguided management has interrupted the natural
fire cycle and allowed forests to grow unnaturally dense. In addition,
excessive analysis, ineffective public involvement and management
inefficiencies have further delayed treatments to return our forest to
their natural fire regime. The Healthy Forest Initiative includes
legislative and administrative actions that provide the necessary tools
to efficiently implement actions to return our forests back to their
historic densities and natural fire cycles. Together with updated fire
management plans and greater application of wildland fire use,
implementation of the Healthy Forest Initiative is the solution to
increase the health of our forest and the pro-active solution to
decrease the likelihood of extraordinarily expensive fire seasons and
funding transfers.
In the interim, we must respectfully defer any discussion of pre-
decisional issues.
maintenance
Question. The administration's request for the Capital Improvement
and Maintenance account includes an increase of $14 million for Roads
and $9 million for Trails, but completely eliminates the $46 million
provided for Deferred Maintenance. Overall, the request cuts
maintenance activities by 4.4 percent. I'm puzzled by these cuts
because your budget documents clearly state that the deferred
maintenance backlog is over $7.8 billion. Now, I understand the Forest
Service has management problems with its maintenance program, but I
don't understand, when you have such an obvious need, why you've chosen
to cut back on deferred maintenance?
Answer. Deferred maintenance is an important concern to the agency
and we will continue to focus on addressing the deferred maintenance
backlog through use of our existing appropriations. The authority to
expend funds on deferred maintenance already exists within Capital
Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, Facilities, Roads, and
Trails, the Roads and Trails for States--10 Percent fund (Expenditure
from Receipts Act of 1913), Operation and Maintenance of Quarters
funds, and the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program funds.
The Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant
administrative land excess to agency needs. The fiscal year 2004 Budget
contains a proposal for the establishment of a Facilities Acquisition
and Enhancement Fund that would enable the Secretary to sell such units
excess to need and to utilize proceeds from those sales for the
acquisition or development of land and improvements for administrative
purposes. Funds collected under this authority would address backlogs
and administrative consolidations while improving efficiencies through
the reconstruction of functionally obsolete facilities or construction
of new facilities. To this end, the Department will submit proposed
legislation concerning this Fund in the upcoming weeks.
leafy spurge--noxious weeds
Question. I'm very concerned with the noxious weed problem in North
Dakota. My constituents who live near the Sheyenne National Grasslands
in the southeastern part of my state and those who live near the
Missouri National Grasslands in the western part have complained
bitterly to me that the Forest Service has not been a good steward of
the land. In particular, I'm talking about the spread of Leafy Spurge,
which, by your own agency's account, has infested somewhere between
30,000 and 35,000 acres of the Missouri Grasslands. That's more than a
quarter of that land. For the past two years, I've had funds earmarked
for leafy spurge management on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands; $200,000
in fiscal year 2002 and $300,000 in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately,
because I've received conflicting reports, I don't have a great deal of
confidence that the $200,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 was used as
Congress intended; that is, as an addition to what was otherwise
provided, not $200,000 total. I want to make sure that that does not
happen again, Chief, and so my question to you is what assurances can
you give me and the people of North Dakota that the fiscal year 2003
funding will be used for additional weed control programs?
Answer. Interagency and interdepartmental efforts have attempted to
address the leafy spurge, one of the most insidious invasive noxious
weed species, using a host of integrated management approaches that
rely on strong partnerships between local, state, tribal, and national
groups. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is an important leader in
addressing the leafy spurge infestations in North Dakota, particularly
with respect to infestations on the National Grasslands. The DPG has
undertaken a comprehensive and collaborative program to fight leafy
spurge infestations. This program relies on partnerships with local
landowners, state and county governments, grazing associations, and
other federal agencies. These partnerships are proving to be the most
effective in fighting leafy spurge on public and private lands. The DPG
has met often with local congressional staffs and county weed boards,
other federal and state agencies and grazing association officers to
plan a landscape-scale approach to the problem, and has developed
cooperative agreements with the North Dakota Agriculture Department and
several grazing associations for on-the-ground leafy spurge management
operations.
The Forest Service appropriations in fiscal year 2003 contained an
unrequested $300,000 Congressional earmark for leafy spurge control.
Our efforts will focus upon slowing infestations across the Dakota
Prairie Grasslands and adjacent state and private property. A component
of the approach provides about $100,000 directly to the North Dakota
Agriculture Department to assist the County Weed Boards, in counties
where National Grasslands are located, for leafy spurge control
operations on those National Grasslands and other nearby critical
locations that threaten to spread to Forest Service lands. This program
is augmented by roughly a 20 percent voluntary contribution from the
non-federal partners to the projects. This non-federal contribution
allows for the implementation of the Wyden Amendment for cooperative
treatment of noxious weeds on both public and adjacent private property
in Weed Management Areas. The cost share amount is based on the
percentage of land ownership within these Weed Management Areas
(private vs. federal or 20 percent and 80 percent).
The DPG is also leading cooperative treatment efforts with the
grazing associations, including McKenzie County Grazing Association,
Little Missouri Grazing Association, Horse Creek Grazing Association,
and Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association, in leafy spurge management
activities on National Grasslands. This effort will have the added
benefit of 20 percent supplemental funding from the non-federal
partners. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands will utilize about $180,000 of
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations to support these partnerships.
With the balance ($20,000) of the fiscal year 2003 leafy spurge
earmark, the DPG will hire a four-person seasonal management crew for
treatment of leafy spurge in critical locations on the Dakota Prairie
Grasslands with emphasis on biological control (Flea beetles). None of
the earmark will fund permanent employees, overhead expenses, or other
Forest Service operational costs. Many of the seasonal workers are from
local colleges and high schools and work for the Forest Service during
the summer.
All participating partners will record treatment and inventory
activities utilizing global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Field
data reporting, at minimum, will follow protocol required by North
Dakota Department of Agriculture. The consolidation of field data will
be coordinated between the USDA FS and ND Department of Agriculture for
official records, mapping, and future planning and management.
grasslands management plan
Question. What is the status of the Scientific Review Team that is
reviewing and analyzing the 64 Allotment management Plans per the
Record of Decision on the Grasslands Management Plan?
Answer. Regional Forester Brad Powell selected the Scientific
Review Team (SRT) after consultation with North Dakota Governor John
Hoeven. The SRT is comprised of Dr. Rod Heitschmidt, UDSA--Agricultural
Research Service; Dr. Kevin Sedivec, NDSU Animal and Range Science
Department; Jeff Printz, USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Dr. Douglas Johnson, USGS--Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center;
Karen Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; Kent Luttswagger, North
Dakota Game and Fish Department; Dr. Harvey Peterson, Golden Valley
County Extension Agent; and Dr. Don Kirby, NDSU Animal and Range
Science Department.
The first meeting of the SRT, held on February 10, 2003, was
designed to provide team members with information that they would need
to perform their role as defined in the Record of Decision for the
Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Plan. Their delineated role is ``. . .
to determine if the grazing portion of the plan can be implemented and
to verify that grazing levels are similar to those projected in the
Revised Grasslands Plan FEIS . . .'' (Record of Decision DPG Plan page
5). The information presented to the SRT included Record of Decision,
Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan, Northern Great Plains Final
Environmental Impact Statement, SRT Handbook and SRT Draft Charter.
The second SRT meeting was on April 15, 2003. At this meeting, the
Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff presented information to the SRT for
the Little Missouri National Grasslands Assessment and the first set of
eight allotment management plans (AMPs). The information provided
included background information for these allotments. Public notice for
these meetings resulted in well attended sessions by those interested
in the process. The next meeting, scheduled for June 16-18, will
include a field trip to those allotments where plan development is
occurring.
lewis & clark bicentennial activities
Question. I'm a big supporter of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
and I'm looking forward to helping the various bicentennial
celebrations. I know the Forest Service is an important federal partner
in this endeavor, and I'm interested in knowing how your budget
supports the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. I know, for example, that
there were plans to build an overlook and trail at Tobacco Gardens, in
North Dakota, where Cruzat shot Merewether Lewis on August 11, 1806. It
is my understanding that construction was scheduled to begin in 2003.
Is that project still on schedule? And could you also tell us what the
Forest Service is doing nationally to commemorate the bicentennial?
Answer. Forest Service field units, especially those in close
proximity to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (LCNHT),
continue to dedicate funding to accomplish the critical work to meet
the agency's commitment to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration. Where possible, the Forest Service provides funding,
technical assistance, or other in-kind assistance to mutually agreed to
interagency projects. Four Regions have specific funding allocated for
National Scenic and Historic Trails, with portions of the LCNHT, have
an estimated $66,000 available for trail management. Since 1999, the
Forest Service has granted over a $1.5 million to 27 state and
community Lewis and Clark Bicentennial projects. Over the past few
couple year, under the agency's constrained budget, about $3 million
has been allocated annually to Bicentennial activities, including the
grants to state and community projects. The Dakota Prairies National
Grassland has also worked in partnership with the Three Affiliated
Tribes to provide interpretive programs to school children and as well
as contributed funding to the North Dakota State Historic Museum for
the development of a L&C Trail Travel Kit for North Dakota.
The overlook and interpretive signs for Tobacco Gardens are
currently under construction. Construction for the connecting trail
will be accomplished in 2004.
Nationally, the Forest Service has been working in partnership with
the National Bicentennial Council, the Trail Heritage Foundation,
federal interagency Memorandum of Understanding working group, and
Tribes to ensure protection and interpretation of the historic trail,
and to provide a coordinated effort for the Bicentennial.
The Forest Service created a national exhibit that was displayed at
the first signature event, at Monticello in January 2003. The Forest
Service is currently planning participation in the Signature Events at
the Falls of the Ohio, Louisville, KY and Clarksville, IN and in the
Big Sky Festival in Great Falls Montana. Plans to participate in other
Signature Events, such as in North Dakota, are evolving. The Forest
Service is committed to our partnership with the National Park Service
for Corps II, a traveling educational exhibit, and has designated an
agency employee to be the liaison to the Corp II effort. Several Forest
Service employees participated in giving presentations in the Tent of
Many Voices at Monticello and on the National Mall.
Question. The bicentennial will also offer the Forest Service the
opportunity to highlight recreational opportunities that are a bit off
the Lewis and Clark Trail. The Forest Service has developed the Maah
Daah Hey Trail, which allows for hiking and biking through the Dakota
Badlands. With increased tourism expected during the upcoming Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial, what is the Forest Service doing to promote the
Maah Daah Hey Trail and other recreational activities it offers in
North Dakota?
Answer. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has recently been designated a
National Recreation Trail and will be formally dedicated on National
Trails Day, June 7, 2003. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has also been an
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) Epic Ride and
remains listed on the IMBA website (http://www.imba.com). The Dakota
Prairie Grasslands has developed brochures and maps about the Maah Daah
Hey Trail as part of its public outreach effort. The Dakota Prairie
National Grassland also has plans to develop and protect additional
interpretive sites that commemorate other historical events that took
place in North Dakota, in particular Custer's Initial Rock and other
military history of that era.
There are several other venues for the public to receive
information on recreation opportunities on the Dakota Prairie
Grasslands. Medora is the focus of a major advertising campaign by
North Dakota Tourism, which is being marketed nationally and
internationally in major magazines and other tourism literature. The
campaign includes information about the 96-mile long Maah Daah Hey
Trail. Locally, informational kiosks display information on
recreational opportunities and special events are publicized in the
newspaper. Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff also provide information to
the public both in person and over the phone. North Dakota recreational
activities in the national grasslands are also available via the
internet, and is maintained at the Forest Service website (http://
www.fs.fed.us/r1/dakotaprairie/) and through the interagency recreation
website (http://www.recreation.gov).
grass banks
Question. Federal rangeland management is often made difficult
during times of drought or other hardship. Already stressed ranchers
experience shrinking resources. The Forest Service has the ability to
work with local ranchers to establish alternative grazing ``grass
banks'' and swing pastures to help during these hard times. What has
the Forest Service done to promote the development of such tools?
Answer. The Forest Service actively seeks alternatives to provide
for rest and rehabilitation of specifically identified rangelands. The
term ``grassbanks'' is a registered trademark of the Malpais
Borderlands Group, therefore the Agency prefers to use the term
``forage reserves'' when referring to this concept in a generic sense.
One way the Forest Service is looking at establishing forage reserves
is through acquisition of private land within the grasslands where the
landowners want to sell to the federal government. If the Forest
Service acquires these lands, both the acquired private land and the
associated federal allotments could be included in a forage reserves
allotment.
The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is also a cooperating agency
with the National Park Service on their environmental analysis to
acquire the Ebert land located in the vicinity of the Elkhorn Ranch
within the Little Missouri National Grassland. Much of the work with
the Park Service has entailed looking at how this project can achieve
the best land ownership pattern for the National Park Service, the
Dakota Prairie Grasslands, and the involved private landowners. If the
Park Service acquires the Ebert Ranch, the DPG would be interested in
establishing a forage reserve on the associated allotment in
cooperation with the Medora Grazing Association.
Under the current grazing agreements, the grazing associations have
the authority to work with the district rangers to establish pastures
which can serve as forage reserves or swing pastures, although at this
point no action has taken place. Members of the grazing associations
have often applied for and received approval for voluntary nonuse.
However, rather than promoting the establishment of forage reserves or
swing pastures in these areas, the associations have allowed others to
use these nonuse pastures with their livestock on an annual basis.
Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Supervisor is currently working
with the Partners for Grasslands Stewardship to develop forage reserve
allotments or pastures within existing allotments. The DPG program has
explored opportunities such as land exchanges, land purchase (willing
seller) and grazing system changes, to provide some of the flexibility
needed by the ranching industry and to improve resource conditions. The
Partners for Grasslands Stewardship includes several ranchers and local
community leaders. One of their efforts has been to develop a better
understanding and acceptance of forage reserves concepts and
opportunities.
sheyenne valley grazing association
Question. The Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association's 10-year Grazing
Agreement expires on March 23. Unless a new agreement is signed, or an
extension granted, grazing will stop on these lands. The Forest Service
is negotiating a new 10-year agreement with the Association, but the
Association has raised several concerns. I've sent a letter to Mark
Rey, the Natural Resources Under Secretary, spelling out these
concerns, and asking for his cooperation in ensuring that the Forest
Service continues to negotiate in good faith. In the meantime, I am
concerned that, after March 23, grazing could come to a halt without a
new agreement. That would be disastrous. Chief, I understand that you
have the authority to extend the agreement for 2 or 3 months at a time
as long as negotiations are continuing. I believe that would be in the
best interests of all concerned. Can I have your assurance that that
will happen?
Answer. Grasslands Supervisor Dave Pieper sent a letter to Senator
Dorgan's office on March 10, 2003 detailing the actions that have taken
place and discussions with your Legislative Assistant LaDeene Freimuth.
The Dakota Prairie Grassland is continuing to work with the Sheyenne
Valley Grazing Association (SVGA) to renew this Grazing Agreement. In
the letter, Supervisor Pieper said he was ``hopeful that a new grazing
agreement will be developed and signed by the expiration date.'' He
also included the following paragraph of assurance:
``In the event a new agreement is not signed by the expiration
date, I will roll over the existing agreement for periods of three or
more months until a new agreement is signed. This will allow permitted
livestock grazing to continue unimpeded. I want to assure you that
development of the new SVGA grazing agreement will be a cooperative
effort between the Association and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.''
Supervisor Piper has tracked this process and has recently issued a
letter officially extending the existing Grazing Agreement until July
1, 2003, while development of a new formal grazing agreement is
continued.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. The Forest Service is requiring states to identify
potential tracts of land for acquisition up to two years in advance. It
has also indicated a preference for identifying individual tracts
instead of focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area
protection, a strategy that has proved very effective in South
Carolina. The ACE Basin river corridor in South Carolina is a great
example of success regarding this type of approach to land acquisition.
Why has the Forest Service pushed for such early identification of
potential land acquisitions? Why has the Forest Service chosen to push
the identification of individual tracts of land as opposed to
concentrating on corridor areas, specifically river corridor areas?
Answer. The federal acquisition process, as defined by laws, rules,
regulations, and policy, and being subject to the annual appropriations
process, makes purchasing a tract of land by the Forest Service much
more complex and time consuming than occurs between two private
individuals. In addition, much lead-time is required in order to get a
project in the President's annual budget request to Congress.
Some of these requirements involve the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public
Law 91-646) and the appraisal process, which can take from 6 to 8
months to contract for, produce an approvable report, and then complete
agency review. Title issues, clearing of liens, surveys, hazmat
investigation requirements, laws dealing with relocation assistance,
negotiations, the phasing of projects, Congressional oversight, and
specific requirements found in various appropriate authorizing
legislation can all add to the time factor in processing a case.
The annual appropriations process begins with the individual
forests submitting their priority projects to the regions and then to
the Washington Office during the summer before the President's next
year's budget is submitted to Congress. Forests cannot know what lands
are available for purchase until much of the preliminary work mentioned
above is completed.
The Forest Service is aware of and frequently uses the approach of
``focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area protection'',
which the Senator suggests in his letter. That approach has been used
successfully over the past 11 years on the Chattooga Wild and Scenic
River Corridor, which involves Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. Emphasis has been placed on acquiring high priority tracts
located within those river corridor boundaries. We are currently
working with The Conservation Fund for the definition of a corridor for
the new Broad River acquisition program in South Carolina in order that
our acquisition program there will be the most effective. We have
frequently used defined corridor planning to focus our acquisition
efforts in various wilderness areas, other congressionally authorized
areas such as National Recreation Areas including the Sawtooth; the
Columbia River Gorge; the Florida National Scenic Trail; and since 1978
on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
Question. Can you outline for me the guidelines the Forest Service
follows in identifying and ranking projects selected in the Forest
Legacy program? Why do different regions follow different guidelines?
Why does the Forest Service insert itself so heavily into the selection
process? Why have lead agencies in our states not been intensively
involved in drafting new guidelines or been involved more heavily in
the selection process?
Answer. The Forest Legacy Program operates under program
implementation guidelines adopted in 1996. These guidelines are
currently under review and are in the process of revision. The final
revision will be released this year and is being amended to respond to
program growth since 1996, findings expressed in the House of
Representatives Committee on Appropriations investigation report
released in June 2002 and to meet fiscal year 2003 congressional
direction on specific items to be included in the revision.
In keeping with the direction described in the above answer, the
Forest Service engages in a project selection process that is
articulated as direction to Forest Service Regional Foresters, Area and
International Institute for Tropical Forestry Directors and State and
Private Forestry Directors and Program Managers that includes a
calendar of milestones and due dates. This is a five-step process that
begins with submissions of project priorities from each participating
State; receives Forest Service Regional input; undergoes a national
review team process in which projects are scored using national
criteria and selected for recommendation in a prioritized list; and are
then submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in
the President's Budget.
The Forest Service conducts this project selection process to
comply with Congressional and Administration direction and to perform
its oversight responsibilities to deliver this national program. Forest
Service regions are allowed flexibility to develop mechanisms to assess
and to recommend projects for selection. They must utilize the national
criteria and provide information and input on individual projects to
inform that process. The foundation for the entire project selection
process is the process that participating State Lead Agencies perform
with their State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committees to review,
approve and rank projects in their State. Only projects that are
determined by the State-based process as priorities are considered for
funding and recommended by the Forest Service.
The Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines revision has
been conducted through a State lead agency--Forest Service Team. The
revision began in 2000 and has undergone numerous drafting rounds and
open comment periods with input received from hundreds of groups and
agency personnel from across the country. The Guidelines Revision Team
is composed of nine members from State lead agencies and the Forest
Service. Drafts of the guidelines have been presented at national
meetings and for review with State program managers from all
participating States.
Question. The regulations employed by the Forest Service for land
appraisal in the states is overburdening. The process is inconsistent,
especially with respect to projects in the Forest Legacy program. In a
time of tight budgets and huge deficits, it is unwise to require 2 or 3
appraisals by certified appraisers at a high cost to the taxpayer.
There has been more emphasis placed on the method of appraisals as
opposed to the value of the land. What has the Forest Service done to
improve and streamline this process? Why is it taking multiple
appraisals in order to get Forest Service approval for new land
acquisitions? Do I need to ask for a GAO review of the appraisal
process to determine where the problem is?
Answer. The House Appropriations Committee reviewed the Forest
Service Legacy Program and issued a report in June 2002. Among the
findings of that investigation report were several related to appraisal
and appraisal review. The report cited the requirement that Federal
payments to landowners not exceed the market value of the property and
that appraisals prepared to determine market value must be prepared in
conformance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions. Many appraisals approved by States were later found not
to comply with Federal appraisal standards and, in many cases, the
value estimates were not supported.
There are several reasons for a large number of unapproved
appraisal reports. Federal oversight of the program was found to be
inconsistent and States have hired appraisers and review appraisers not
qualified to perform the appraisal and review assignments. States have
been reluctant to impose uniform qualifications requirements for
appraisers and review appraisers. Federal reviews of those appraisals
in compliance with Forest Service oversight requirements have too often
discovered these deficiencies after the fact. It often requires
multiple appraisals to effect an acquisition when appraisers or
reviewers are hired that are not qualified or who cannot support their
value estimates.
In an effort to streamline the appraisal process and help ensure
more effective use of public funds, the Forest Service is working with
the States to involve the assigned review appraiser early in the
acquisition process to help obviate later unpleasant surprises. The
Forest Service is also working with the States to adopt standard
implementation guidelines for appraisal and appraisal review. There are
both industry and Federal appraisal standards that must be applied when
public funds are expended. Appraisal reports failing to comply with
those standards cannot be approved.
The Forest Service valuation function has been investigated and
reviewed by GAO, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the
Inspector General (OIG), The Appraisal Foundation (TAF), and the
aforementioned House Appropriations Committee. The Forest Service has
made substantial changes in policy the past few years to comply with
recommendations of those investigations and reviews.
In the Federal appraisal community, the Forest Service is now
regarded as a yardstick by which other agencies measure their valuation
function. For example, TAF also reviewed the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Interior, and issued a report in October 2002. That
report recommended massive changes to the way BLM does its appraisal
business and how it is organized. The Forest Service has been requested
to assist the BLM in implementing some recommendations of TAF report,
as well as OIG and GAO reviews and audits dating back to 1987. The
Appraisal Work Group chartered by BLM has relied upon ``the Forest
Service model'' for several appraisal organization recommendations. The
Chief Appraiser, Department of Justice, recently reported that he has
fewer litigation and standards compliance problems with Forest Service
than any other agency with which he routinely works.
______
USDA Forest Service--Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan 2003
[Finalized 04/01/03]
introduction
This plan establishes Chief's direction for the 2003 fire season.
It responds to lessons learned, after-action assessments, and formal
reviews following the 2002 fire season. It incorporates recommendations
from the Line Officer's Team and Chief's taskings dealing with cost
containment (Troyer-Mann Report and Cost Accountability Report). The
plan is consistent with the 30-Mile Mitigation Plan, the 10-Year
Comprehensive Plan and the National Fire Plan. This direction
introduces operational expectations and clarifies existing policies and
procedures. It reinforces performance expectations for Forest Service
Line Officers and Fire & Aviation Management personnel.
The plan focuses attention on four areas:
--Preparedness
--Cost containment
--Hazardous fuel treatments
--Safety--ground and aviation operations
This plan is responsive to Administration goals of fiscal integrity
and the Chief's goals to deliver a safe, effective Fire & Aviation
Management program. It recognizes that large air tanker capacity is
down from previous years and several cooperator programs are also below
last year's levels.
The direction established in this plan reflect important
performance measures for Line Officers, Incident--Area Command Teams,
and fire management personnel in the conduct of operations.
Finally, this plan recognizes that, because of Forest Service
capability and experience with emergency response, the agency will
continue to be asked to respond to incidents beyond the normal scope of
business. The Forest Service is prepared to support missions that
assist others in need, with focus on assisting others to build their
capacity to respond. Management options for handling future all-risk
workloads must be defined. In this context, the following priorities
will guide the commitment of resources:
1. National security
2. Protection of life
3. Protection of property
4. Protection of natural resources
background
During the fire season of 2002, initial attack forces displayed
remarkable success under extreme burning conditions by containing over
98 percent of all starts before they could become large fires. The
fires that escaped initial or extended attack actions resulted in
extraordinary costs, losses, and damages. Fires that grew above 300
acres accounted for over 95 percent of the total acres burned and
nearly 85 percent of all suppression expenditures. Wildfires on
National Forest System lands burned over 1.4 million acres or over
twice the 10-year average. Suppression expenditures were $1.2 billion;
again twice the 10-year average.
Fireline operations were relatively safe, given the level of
exposure. Vehicle accidents and aircraft accidents, however, exceeded
past levels and accounted for 69 percent of all wildland fire-related
fatalities in 2002.
situational assessment
Wildland Fire Outlook--March through August 2003. National and
Geographic Predictive Service groups, climatologists, fuels specialists
and fire behavior analysts convened for a seasonal assessment workshop
in Mesa, Arizona during the week of February 24-28, 2003. Based on the
analysis shared and assessments completed, it was determined that
nationally, the 2003 fire season will not be as severe as 2002
(seasonal assessment http://www.nifc.gov). However, much of the
interior West, south/central Alaska, western Great Lakes and northern
Maine is expected to experience an above normal fire season for the
following reasons:
--Long-term drought persists over much of the interior West with
mountain snowpack and winter precipitation remaining below
average to date.
--Drought stressed and/or insect damaged vegetation is becoming more
prevalent across the western states and will increase the
potential for large, destructive wildfires at mid to high
elevations.
--Drought conditions are emerging in the Great Lake States leaving
herbaceous fuels standing, uncompressed, and receptive to
ignition. An early fire season is anticipated with peat fires
in these areas being problematic due to dry conditions.
--Early snow melt is anticipated for Alaska, Pacific Northwest, Great
Basin and Northeastern California which will cause large dead/
downed fuel moistures to drop below critical values earlier
than normal in the higher elevation areas, resulting in an
early and extended fire season.
--The Southern Area is expecting a below normal spring fire season
overall, however forecasts call for a very active tropical
storm season which could result in an above average number of
hurricanes that impact the area and diminish fire risk through
the summer months.
--An early spring prescribed fire season is expected across many
western states.
--State budget reductions are likely to result in reduced
firefighting capacity from our State and local cooperators.
Unless weather patterns provide relief, 2003 has the potential for
an above normal fire season with several areas experiencing significant
wildfire activity simultaneously. In some parts of the country, fire
season potential will likely be higher, as the result of several years
of drought. Of particular significance is the potential for long-
duration fires in higher elevation timber types in much of the interior
West. Fires occurring in these types often prove to be difficult to
suppress and very labor intensive. Historically, in the Northern
Rockies and higher elevation sites elsewhere in the interior West,
exponential acreage growth typically occurs very late in the season, as
high velocity winds blow out unsecured perimeters.
preparedness
Policy.--``Agencies will ensure their capability to provide safe,
cost effective fire management programs in support of land and resource
management plans through appropriate planning, staffing, training,
equipment, and management oversight.''
Principle.--Where hazardous fuels dominate the landscape,
establishing a strong, decisive initial attack capability is a key
component in minimizing large fire suppression costs. As fire danger
levels increase and suppression resources become scarce, initial attack
capacity must be maintained as the most certain means of preventing new
costly wildfires.
Chief's Intent.--Extended attack and initial attack operations will
be the number one mobilization priority. All efforts will be made to
utilize predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position
protection resources.
At National Planning Levels Four and Five, national shared
resources (airtankers, hotshot crews, smokejumpers, etc.) will be
allocated and re-allocated by National Multi-agency Coordination Group
(NMAC), based on observed and predicted fire danger intelligence.
All units will be trained, staffed and ready to meet operational
demands. Staffing levels will be adjusted, based on observed and
predicted fire danger in order to maintain protection capabilities.
Staffing levels will be coordinated with adjacent cooperators.
Personnel will be trained, qualified, and red-carded for the
positions that they are assigned. Forest Service employees will be
available to support fire emergencies to the best of their ability and
capability.
Objective.--All level units will be staffed at the identical 2002
level. We are currently working with OMB to achieve this goal. (95
percent of planned NFMAS capability). A 98 percent initial/extended
attack success rate remains our goal in 2003.
Chief's Direction
--Fire Management Plans will be updated utilizing the new interagency
template (All plans must meet this new requirement no later
than December, 2004).
--Effective organizational capability will be sustained by
maintaining management, supervisory, and crew staffing skills.
Coaches or mentors will be pre-identified for support, where
they may be needed.
--Managers will assure personnel assigned to full duty will be
appropriately trained and physically fit prior to their
deployment.
--Staffing levels and drawdown plans will be adjusted, based on
observed and predicted fire danger. Severity funding requests
will be submitted and approved prior to the pay period for
which they are planned. Severity requests will be coordinated
with cooperators to most effectively maintain management
oversight, supervisory controls, and crew capabilities in the
critical area.
--Units will be prepared to hire and train AD employees and local/
volunteer fire department personnel to meet local and, as
appropriate, national needs. Training and availability of State
and local fire departments, including volunteers, will be
coordinated.
--Preparedness Plans, Mutual Threat Plans, Memorandums of
Understanding, Cost Share Agreements, and other plans will be
reviewed and updated prior to fire season.
--Multi-agency Coordinating Group (MAC) members will be pre-
identified and Predictive Services support will be ready prior
to the start of fire season. MAC Groups should include
individuals with coordination and command experience. Prior to
fire season, MAC Groups will establish prioritization criteria
for incident allocation and re-allocation of resources. Line
Officers will provide a formal Delegation of Authority to MAC
Groups that include agency objectives and agency expectations.
Prioritization criteria will be included in the Delegation of
Authority.
--Service and Supply Plans will be completed and associated Emergency
Equipment Rental Agreements (EERA) will be in place prior to
fire season.
--Pre-season simulations, including Wildland Fire Situation Analysis
(WFSA) development, will be conducted on units.
cost containment
Policy.--``Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering
firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected,
consistent with resource objectives.''
Principle.--Line Officer oversight and involvement during the
decision-making process is critical for containing suppression costs.
Chief's Intent.--In terms of implementation, this means that the
primary criteria for choosing suppression strategies are to minimize
costs without compromising safety. Planned and actual suppression costs
must also be commensurate with the values to be protected. They must be
included and displayed in the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA).
Under no circumstances are suppression strategies to be tailored to
achieve resource benefit. Even though resource benefits may result in
some areas of the fires, it is inappropriate to expend suppression
dollars with the explicit objective of achieving resource benefits.
Indirect suppression strategies (containing to natural barriers,
etc.) are appropriate only if they are the safest or least cost option.
When fire danger trends are rising, the selection of these strategies
must be carefully scrutinized because escape potentials are greater.
Long-duration, ``siege-like'' wildfires where high numbers of
firefighting resources are being committed, need to be closely
evaluated by standing cost containment teams to ensure that operations
are not occurring beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Objective.--Expend only those funds required for the safe, cost-
effective suppression of the incident.
Chief's Direction
--Line Officers are responsible for financial oversight. This
responsibility cannot be delegated.
--Formulate two inter-agency Standing Suppression Cost Review Teams.
Teams will be established by April 15.
--When fire danger trends are rising, the long-term consequences of
indirect containment strategies, including final fire cost,
will be considered in the initial action decision.
--The WFSA will include the least-suppression cost option. This
option will serve as a way to describe the values to be
protected and the context surrounding a suppression decision.
If the least-suppression cost option is not chosen, the WFSA
will include written rationale for not choosing it.
--A suppression cost objective will be included as an incident
objective and included in the Delegation of Authority to the
Incident Commander. These cost objectives must maintain safety
considerations and be commensurate with the values to be
protected Revision of the WFSA is required if incident cost
objectives are exceeded.
--Incident suppression cost objectives will be included as a
performance measure in Incident Management Team evaluations.
--Suppression costs over $2 million will require approval of the
Forest Supervisor.
--Suppression costs over $10 million require Regional Forester
approval and costs exceeding $50 million will require Chief's
Office approval. It is understood that, in approving
suppression costs, decision-makers at the higher organizational
levels share the risks associated with outcomes.
--All incidents projected to exceed $5 million will require assigning
an Incident Business Advisor. The Incident Business Advisor
reports directly to the responsible Line Officer/Agency
Administrator.
--Wildfires involving multiple jurisdictions should require mutually
agreed-upon Unified Commands. Commands should be unified as
early in the incident as possible. The rapid exchange of
information and coordinated tactics are a safety precaution,
first, and a cost containment protocol, second. Cost
apportionments will be based on mutually agreed upon criteria
and reflected in the Delegation of Authority from Agency
Administrators.
hazardous fuel treatments
Policy.--Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to
reduce the risk of unplanned and unwanted wildland fire to communities
and the environment.
Principle.--The most effective means of reducing large fire
suppression costs, protecting community values, restoring forest and
grassland health, and improving firefighter safety, is an aggressive
fuel treatment program. Treatments are particularly important in fire-
dependent ecosystems, where prolonged fire exclusion has resulted in
over-accumulated fuels. The Forest Service will continue to emphasize
fuel treatments in high priority areas where communities, watersheds,
and critical resources are at risk.
Chief's Intent.--The President's Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-
Year Comprehensive Strategy and the National Fire plan establish goals
for reducing hazardous fuels. Reducing risk to our firefighters,
communities, municipal watersheds and restoring the health of our
forests and rangelands are the central themes of these initiatives.
The safest, most effective wildfire protection strategy is
predicated on an aggressive fuels reduction program. In fire-dependent
ecosystems, the use of prescribed fire, at ecologically appropriate
intensities is an essential means of restoring forest health
conditions. In Fire Regime I, Condition Class 3 forests, hazard
mitigation treatments may often be required before prescribed fire
projects can go forward within acceptable limits of social, economic,
and ecological risk.
Prescribed fires and wildland fires that aim to achieve resource
benefits must be accompanied by supporting NEPA compliant plans.
Objective.--Treat 1.6 million acres of hazardous fuels, service-
wide.
Chief's Direction
--A high priority will be given to achieving fuels treatment projects
through the fire season.
--Re-distribution of targets and funds between Regions may occur in
order to maximize project accomplishments, service-wide.
--Identification on fiscal year 2004 hazardous fuels projects will be
completed by May 1, 2003 (reference FSM 5100 letter, dated
January 14, 2003, ``fiscal year 2004 Fuel Treatment Program
Priorities'').
safety--ground and aviation operations
Policy.--``Firefighter safety is the first priority.'' Fight fire
aggressively, but provide for safety first!
Principles
--Firefighter safety comes first on every fire every time.
--The 10-Standard Firefighting Orders are firm; we don't break them,
we don't bend them.
--Every firefighter has the right to a safe assignment.
--Every Line Officer, every Fire Manager, every fireline supervisor,
and every firefighter is responsible to ensure that established
safe practices are known and observed.
Chief's Intent.--Safety will not be compromised in the conduct of
ground or air operations. However, safety decisions must be made in the
context of probabilities, exposure, and consequence over the long-term,
particularly as fire danger trends are rising. The selection of
indirect containment strategies must be weighed against longer-term
safety concerns that may result if the fire exceeds expected or planned
perimeters. Likewise, nighttime operations that mitigate snags and
other hazards may be the safer tactic when weighed against fire
behavior dangers that often exist during active burning periods. When
seasonal fire danger trends are rising, the small wildland fire kept
small is generally the safer fire.
Proactive suppression tactics that can mitigate hazards and provide
an operational advantage are favored over reactive or passive tactics
that increase exposure to the firefighters over time. We all have a
role in safety. In pre-season preparedness meetings, take the time to
discuss the responsibilities and expectations that surround
firefighting safety.
Objective.--Observe established safe practices on every fire this
year.
Chief's Direction
--Continue the implementation of the Thirty mile Hazard Abatement
Plan on all units.
--Unit preparedness--at management oversight, supervisory control,
and crew levels--will be commensurate with observed and
predicted fire danger.
--Managers and supervisors will be in compliance with the National
Wildland Coordinating Group (NWCG) work rest guidelines (2003
National Interagency Mobilization Guide).
--Appropriate span of control will be maintained for managers,
supervisors, and firefighters at a ratio commensurate to the
complexities presented by the fireline operations at hand.
--Define control objectives (e.g. road, river, fuel type break, or
other perimeter objective) on every initial attack incident.
When control objectives are exceeded, immediately delay,
modify, or abandon any firefighting action. Fireline
Supervisors will assess the new situation, brief the
firefighters on strategy/tactical change, and then implement
appropriate actions.
--Airtankers airworthiness and maintenance status will be monitored
as the fire season progresses. At appropriate intervals,
required inspections and maintenance will be conducted.
--Airtankers will be pre-positioned, based on projected fire danger
levels, in the context of values to be protected.
--Airtankers will be utilized primarily for initial and extended
attack. Large fire airtanker use will be determined on a case-
by-case basis, or when lives or communities are at risk.
Communicate.--Safety is a responsibility we all share.
See it--Say it--Fix it.--You owe it to yourself, your crew, and
those around you.
summary
Dynamic tensions define today's Fire and Aviation Management
Program. These tensions can only be managed successfully with adherence
to established safe practices procedures, attention to critical fire
behavior risk thresholds, and sound judgment.
At the highest levels of activity, when suppression demands are
high and resources are scarce, Line Officers and Fire Managers must
maintain a high level of situational awareness, anticipate needs, and
proactively lead.
Paying attention to relationships and maintaining open lines of
communication pay big dividends when people and organizations are under
stress. We are stronger when we work together and more effective when
we share information.
Early projections indicate that this fire season may be another
difficult year for us. The steps outlined in this action plan are
intended to increase margins of safety and preparedness with the aim of
reducing the costs, losses, and damages that have become more common as
fuels have built up in drought areas where people live.
However, over the long-term, an aggressive fuel treatment program
is the surest means of ensuring firefighter and public safety,
reversing wildfire costs, and restoring healthy, resilient forests and
grasslands (Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for Containing Costs, NAPA
Report, 09/02).
We will continue to pursue an accelerated fuel treatment program.
Programs that focus on restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems and
better integrate fuel management, forest health, wildlife, range,
watershed, and other available dollars will be more aggressively
explored.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April
10, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from
the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretay of the Interior.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Thursday, March 20, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
April 10.]